Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mutual Societies

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Andrew Love: I am fortunate to have secured this debate literally on the eve of the announcement of the conversion ballot for the Nationwide building society, the largest mutual organisation in the country. It is therefore an appropriate time for Parliament to take stock of the current position, and to look to the future of mutual societies.
It is difficult to underestimate the contribution that mutual organisations have made since the formation of the first friendly society more than 200 years ago. Whether we look at the self-help welfare state that was created by the friendly societies in the inter-war period, the home ownership revolution brought about by building societies or the empowerment of full-income consumers by co-operatives, we can see that the self-help and mutual movement has had a dramatic impact on the lives of ordinary people in this country. It continues to do so.
The movement also influences Government—most recently, in the search for the elusive third way between the unfettered capitalism of the 1980s and the straight socialism of the past. I believe that mutuality is synonymous with the third way.
That fact was underlined in a recent article in the New Statesman, by a commentator who dubbed the so-called third way "mutualism". Ministers have vied to define its objectives. The Green Paper entitled "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare" explicitly supports that policy when it states:
Mutual organisations should play a greater role in the provision of welfare in the next century.
That statement relates partly to the failure of the financial services industry to act as a guardian of our savings and our pensions. It is also grounded in the belief in both the limitations of state provision and the unacceptability of privatising the welfare state. Thus mutual organisations are the sensible third way forward.
In a recent speech, the Minister for Welfare Reform suggested the development of approved welfare providers whose central requirement would be that they were owned and controlled by their members—that is, that they be mutual in both character and definition. The Government clearly support the principle and practice of mutuality, yet many mutuals face sustained attack, partly because of their success. How can that be? I believe that it relates to the failure of the Building Societies Act 1997 to provide any safeguards for societies against the activities of

carpetbaggers and the impact that that that has on their businesses. As a result, their very mutuality is, or will be, perceived as a hindrance to their future success.
Before considering that issue, I must comment on the value of mutual organisations in the financial services marketplace. The consumer benefits from access to the services and products that mutual organisations provide. Societies offer choice to the consumer, and they are popular. Although the remaining societies constitute only 27 per cent. of the mortgage market, they have lent more to customers in the past year than the big banks combined.
Survey after survey confirms that building societies come top in terms of customer service and friendliness. They provide diversity through their different structures and different objectives. Mutuals are able to take a longer-term perspective, as they are not driven by the need to boost their share prices continually, or to maximise dividends to their shareholders.
Many societies are regionally and even locally based, which brings them closer to their customers, and many play a significant role in the local community. There is a building society head office in each of the 12 regions of the United Kingdom, where they are an important source of local employment, living standards and decision making. Building societies provide stability in the market—not for them the false attractions of property speculation or secondary banking.
History shows that banks with excess capital are tempted into unwise investments. As a result, no savings have been lost in building societies this century. Thus building societies are truly prudential organisations, but, most importantly, they provide competition to the banks and other institutions in the financial services sector.
Building societies have a margin advantage, which allows them to offer cheaper mortgages, or savings accounts that pay more on average. The difference between the interest that they receive on mortgages and that which they pay out on savings ranges from 1.2 to 1.7 per cent. The equivalent margin for their demutualised rivals ranges from 1.9 to 2.5 per cent.—a considerable advantage. That was commented on recently by none other than the chairman of the Building Societies Commission, who explained:
As Mutual Societies do not have to pay dividends to external shareholders, they will always have a margin advantage over banks".
However, mortgage lending is generally considered to be low-risk and, as a result, low-return—not a natural market for profit-maximising companies. In a recent survey, the Consumers Association compared a range of core products—savings accounts, TESSAs, mortgages and overdrafts—and found that consumers would have been nearly £1,600 better off over a five-year period with a building society than with a bank.
Building societies also act as a competitive restraint on the banks. Without them, banks would charge customers even more for their mortgages, and pay even less to their savers. The question posed in this debate is: how do we preserve for future generations the right to those cheaper mortgages and higher savings rates? That is particularly relevant as the building society sector has been undergoing rapid change in the past few years, culminating in the conversion of five of the largest societies last year. Although that still leaves 70 societies with more than £130 billion in assets, the recent windfall


gains to members have created a climate that threatens the very mutuality that allows members to vote themselves that benefit.
It is clear that societies, which must survive in a cut-throat, competitive market, cannot continue to be diverted from their core business activities to defend their mutual status. If those attacks continue—even if unsuccessfully—societies will probably be faced with the unpalatable choice of continuing to defend their position against increasing odds or accepting that it would be better for their business and for their other stakeholders to convert on their own terms. That would reduce the number of societies to below the level that would make for a sustainable mutual sector, and would inevitably lead to its elimination from the financial services market.
Many of us would argue that there is a systemic interest in maintaining mutuality, not because it is an inherently superior form of organisation, but because there is a need for a mixed ownership structure in the financial services sector for the reasons that I have already outlined. If that is accepted, mutuality becomes a public policy issue, and the Government and Parliament must take an interest in ensuring that consumers do not lose as a result of the continued conversions. How can that be done while protecting both member control and democracy, which are the unique selling points of mutual organisations?
Societies are looking for fairness, not favours—the creation of a legal framework that will allow them to compete on a level playing field in the financial services sector. The Minister has already shown the way by raising the threshold for conversion to 50 per cent., but fundamental decisions about the future of a mutual society—the most important decision that a member can take—should require a significant level of support before demutualisation. After all, converted societies can be subject to takeover only if 75 per cent. of shareholders vote to confirm that action.
As recent events have shown, the rules on the election of candidates to boards of directors are set at a level that can easily be exploited by a small band of eccentric or dissident individuals. The democracy of a mutual organisation should be protected against frivolous candidatures, in the same way as Members of Parliament are protected in general elections.
To be nominated a Member of Parliament requires 10 electors in an average constituency of 67,000 electors, which is one for every 6,700. Nationwide, the largest mutual, has just under 5 million members; the Bradford and Bingley has 2.2 million members. To be nominated a member of Nationwide requires only one nomination for every 100,000 members; and to be nominated a member of the Bradford and Bingley requires only one nomination for every 44,000 members.
Are not building societies being significantly disadvantaged by allowing their equivalent to the Monster Raving Loony party to continue to disrupt their activities? To put it another way, is it unreasonable to set the threshold for candidates around a level that the nation finds acceptable for its democratic elections?
Membership of a society should be for those who have an interest in its activities, not for those who are only interested in asset-stripping the society for their own benefit. During the past year, 1.3 million new members

have joined Nationwide. They could undermine the majority of longer-standing members who voted overwhelmingly to maintain the society's mutual status at last year's annual meeting. To gain ownership rights in a society, an applicant should have been a member for a minimum period. That returns societies to their original ideal of requiring their new customers to save with the society before gaining membership or its benefits.
In addition, the protections of a society's legal status are being eroded in the current campaign. The resolution submitted to the annual general meeting of Nationwide by a proponent of demutualisation means in practice that the decision to convert can now be approved as a result of a straightforward majority of those voting. It is difficult to see how the society could resist the moral pressure, despite the fact that the strict legal requirements have not been met.
Is it reasonable to make societies go through the disruption and uncertainty that is inherent in the frivolous campaigns now being mounted? They have the ability to stand every year with impunity and with little financial outlay, yet the cost to societies in terms of mounting a reasonable defence and in terms of disruption to their business in enormous. I understand that last year's campaign for Nationwide cost some £2 million, and it will cost even more this year. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the framework of regulation should provide stability, and ensure that societies cannot be held to ransom by a small and unrepresentative group of people who have no commitment to the objectives of the mutual organisations of which they are members.
Mutual societies have been with us for more than 200 years, and have more than 100 years of expertise in the savings and mortgage markets. If they and their expertise are not to be undermined, action will be necessary to deal with the difficulties and disruption that threaten their future existence.

Mr. John Greenway: I am delighted to speak after the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), and I congratulate him on securing the debate and on its exquisite timing, given the Nationwide ballot that takes place tomorrow. He hid his light under a bushel, because he has successfully chaired the all-party building societies group since being elected to the House last year. It has been my pleasure for the past seven years to chair a sister group, the all-party insurance and financial services group, and I have greatly enjoyed working with him. I agree with much of what he said, and he went over some of the ground that our group has covered in recent years.
Before I continue, I should remind hon. Members of my interests in the insurance broking profession; they will inform what I have to say, rather than be of any direct benefit to insurance brokers and intermediaries.
The all-party insurance and financial services group addressed mutuality twice in 1996. I have been able to return to what we discussed in preparation for the debate, because the briefing papers prepared for the group by Price Waterhouse were published in a bound volume. We considered the building society mutualisation issue, and concluded that mutuals have an extremely important role to play.
Our general conclusion was that there is a need for a mixed economy, and some of the smaller building societies in Yorkshire such as the Skipton, the


Scarborough, the Leeds and Holbeck, and the Yorkshire were especially helpful in addressing our thoughts. The hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned the Bradford and Bingley; one could filibuster for half an hour by reading out all the names, but there is no need to do that today.
The hon. Member for Edmonton was exactly right to say that the record shows that smaller societies are giving a better return to savers and a more competitive mortgage rate to borrowers than many of the larger societies. I have had my mortgage in Yorkshire with the Halifax for 21 years; in London, I am with the Cheltenham and Gloucester, which offered an extremely competitive deal when I took out the loan on my current house. The important point for hon. Members is that, if all the mutual societies were stripped away, demutualised big banks and building societies would result in a less competitive market, especially if all the business ended up in the hands of the few.
It could be argued that there are too many societies—the same argument applies in life assurance—but, overall, we should be in no doubt that the markets for savings and for mortgages would be less competitive if all the smaller societies disappeared. That is why I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Edmonton that it is a matter of public policy that there should be a structure for those societies to flourish.
The outcome of tomorrow's Nationwide vote will help to determine whether the Building Societies Act 1997 is adequate. I pressed the previous Government to go further, and to take stronger action against the carpetbaggers. Sadly, we were not able to prevail in the argument, although, as the hon. Member for Edmonton knows, his predecessor as chairman of the all-party building societies group, Mr. Douglas French, did a great deal to further the argument and the legislation.
Mutuality also extends into life assurance, pensions and friendly societies. Five of the top 10 life assurance companies in this country are mutuals, and mutual companies have always been especially strong in the with-profits field of business. There have been arguments in the recent past about whether societies such as Standard Life, the National Provident Institution, Friends Provident and so on will be able to survive as mutuals. It is to their credit that they have made it clear that that is their wish.
In the case of Norwich Union, different factors were at play, because it owned one of the largest general insurance companies, and its real value could never be realised for its policyholders. Its demutualisation was extremely successful, but it showed that there is no clear way in which everyone should go: there is a need for some societies to remain mutual and for some to enjoy the benefits of plc status.
The argument on mutuality for life assurers is more complex than for building societies, and we must be aware of some dangers. The first is that history shows that several mutual life assurance companies got into difficulty and were absorbed by other mutual societies. For example, Friends Provident absorbed the United Kingdom Provident Institution some years ago. Although that shows the strength of the industry as a whole, it also shows that mutuality in itself is not a guarantee of success. There is still a requirement for proper management and efficiency.
One reason why many mutual life assurance companies have not performed as well as they should is because their new business costs have been far too high. They have

tried to get more business, but have neglected the effect of that on the overall performance of their with-profits fund. I think that my remarks will be dear to the heart of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury: whether a company is mutual or plc—there is potential for combining them—it is crucial to bring down the cost of new business to more sensible levels, so that members and policyholders derive the true benefit of their investments.
A great deal of inefficiency in the life industry was obscured by the old life assurance premium relief, which was abolished in 1985. There was a great hue and cry in the industry when the relief was abolished—it was said that that would be the end of everything—but abolition made the industry more efficient. In whatever form companies exist, the taxation arrangements within which they have to do business are important—I know that the Economic Secretary appreciates that.
I want to sound a slightly controversial note: the scale of it remains to be seen, but there is a problem because policyholders of mutual life assurance companies will have to pay towards the cost of compensation for pensions mis-selling. I have raised this matter several times in the House, and I know that the problem arose under the previous Government, not this one.
People who belong to mutual societies through buying a life assurance policy must take an interest in the way the society is run. There will undoubtedly be some squeals in a year or two about the extent to which some policyholders have to pay for the compensation arrangements for others. We must ensure that the arrangements under which the phase 2 review in particular is conducted are fair to all, and that we bear in mind the interests of policyholders who will not be compensated, but who will contribute to others.
What do we really mean by mutuality? Is it simply a matter of structure, or is there a philosophical argument? The philosophical argument has often been rubbished by City commentators, who have said that it has no real benefit.
A year ago, Loughborough university published an excellent paper entitled "Reflections on the Mutuality and Future of Building Societies", featuring research carried out for the Building Societies Association. The paper comments:
Philosophical issues about the 'true nature' of mutuality are a diversion and are largely irrelevant: the key issue is whether mutuals do or do not add value efficiently for consumers.
I agree with that.
I think that there is a philosophical argument. Mutual status can be about shared ownership—I know that the Minister has stakeholder pension funds in mind—but it is entirely conceivable that we may enter a phase in which mutual funds will be necessary if we are to gain the administrative efficiency that is so necessary to keeping down the costs of new business I mentioned. In such a phase, the funds would belong entirely to the policyholders, investors or future pensioners, but might well be administered and managed by plcs because of the size of the task involved.
Having worked in the insurance industry for a long time, I believe that mutuality is about the philosophy: it is about the way in which people do business, and about relationships. In the early days of the life assurance industry, and our great insurance industry—which has led the world in new developments for at least two


centuries—the mutual philosophy, the philosophy of uniting to solve problems that could not be solved in any other way, characterised the companies as they were formed.
What has gone wrong in the insurance industry over the past 10 to 20 years is that, in many quarters, the drive to create new business has become more important than addressing the needs of members. Today's debate is important not just in regard to events today and tomorrow affecting the Nationwide building society, but in giving us an opportunity to see a wider picture.
As the excellent Loughborough university paper points out, in the end the argument will be about whether mutuality adds value. That argument is as much about efficiency as it is about offering the best returns. We should tell the financial services world that we believe the future lies in giving a better service to investors and policyholders, and we should bear in mind the need for structures of taxation and legislation that allow that philosophy to flourish. If we can achieve that, we can achieve for future generations of investors, pensioners and policyholders the better returns to which they are entitled.

Mr. David Lepper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate at such an appropriate time.
Although we are discussing the future of mutuality, let me briefly remind the House that my constituency is the birthplace of one of its strands. In 1820, Dr. William King, Elizabeth Fry, Lady Byron and others set up the Brighton co-operative society and the Brighton provident society in West street, in the heart of my constituency. Last week, as a Nationwide member and mortgage holder, I visited the society's branch in that same West street in order to cast my vote.
There is no doubt that the notion of mutuality has again captured the imaginations of a great many people in the past three or four years. Last year, more people voted in the Nationwide ballot than in the Welsh referendum. I am glad to say that, in both cases, I agreed with the result of the vote, and I hope that the same will be true of the Nationwide ballot whose results will be announced in a day or so.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke of the philosophy of mutuality, and it seems to me that the notion of mutual trust is at the heart of that philosophy. Although I do not agree with everything I hear on "Today", I was interested by the results of a survey commissioned by the BBC earlier this year on behalf of that programme. People were asked which kind of organisation they would most trust to help them to choose the best mortgage for their circumstances. Of those who responded, 8 per cent. chose converted building societies, 23 per cent. chose traditional banks, and 44 per cent. chose the existing mutual building societies. It is vital for us to keep in mind that element of trust, as well as the financial and regulatory framework that we are rightly considering this morning.
It is, I think, no accident that some of the larger public limited companies have assumed a veneer of mutuality through the spate of loyalty cards and club cards that we have seen over the past year or so. They are playing on

that important theme of mutual organisations: the notion of being—dare I use this term?; I shall, as we have talked about the third way—a stakeholder.
Like, I suspect, a few other hon. Members, I come from a generation for whom the divvy from the Co-op was an important part of the household finances. In matters of insurance, my generation turned not to the huge insurance companies, but to the Oddfellows, the Buffaloes or the Foresters—the mutual friendly societies that, in many working-class homes, formed the basis of the household economy, along with the Co-op.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton mentioned the welfare reform Green Paper. That paper, along with many of the other discussion documents that have been published, offers a future to the friendly society and the mutual organisation as we look to the reform of the welfare state and the pensions system.
I am sure that many other hon. Members were inundated last year, as I was, by the plethora of unwanted faxes churned out by shady organisations spending their time spotting the building societies that were likely to be the next converts, and advising people how to make a killing straight away. All the faxes that I received went back where they came from, but I am interested in one aspect of the challenge to the mutual building societies that we have seen over the past few years.
In one respect at least, it has been good for them. I thought a little before saying that, but I think that some societies were in danger of becoming complacent, and they have had to think rather more imaginatively than they might otherwise have done about the service that they offer their members—not just about attracting new customers.
Building societies have risen to that challenge remarkably well, which is why, in the nine months to June this year, they captured 40 per cent. of the new lending market. In 1997, 13 of the 15 cheapest lenders were mutual building societies. Between 1992 and 1997, eight of the top performing TESSAs were offered by mutual building societies. They offer competitive mortgages and competitive rates to savers.
I welcomed last year's announcement by the Economic Secretary on the requirement for a 50 per cent. turnout, and perhaps we should consider whether that should be even higher. The Government should turn their attention to the issue of the required number of nominees for directors of mutual building societies, and to the qualifications that we would expect of nominees for directorships, although I am not sure how that could be arranged. We need to ensure that they are in tune with the ethos of the organisation that they seek to guide by becoming directors.
I hope that the mutuals will have a bright future. We have been reminded that friendly societies have similar arrangements. Moreover, the Automobile Association is one of the leading mutual-type organisations because of the way in which it structures its relationship with its members. The mutuality field is wide.
I await with anticipation the results of the vote on the board of Nationwide and on whether it should consider converting. I hope that the vote will be against conversion, because that would give a clear message to other building societies and other carpetbaggers. It would put to rest, for a few years at least, the threat to mutuality, and would allow the mutual building societies to get on with the job that we all want them to do.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this debate, and on leading an effective all-party campaign. He has maintained the support of hon. Members from all three parties for the building society movement, and that has been a substantial contributory factor to the mature level of debate about this issue in the country. It is helpful that he has chosen to debate not just building societies, but the mutuality principle at large. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) captured the broader issue very well.
I shall perhaps be a little controversial, because I have been struck by the paradoxical approach of the new Government. There is a genuine enthusiasm for mutuality. Members of the Government, such as the Minister for Welfare Reform, clearly believe passionately in the principle, and recognise its effectiveness in attacking many social problems. They understand the culture in which the principle of mutuality grew up. I have heard the Economic Secretary speak about her roots in the west of Scotland, and she clearly understands how the movement originated and its strengths.
However, the Government have often fallen over backwards to avoid doing anything that could be seen as overly sympathetic to the mutual institutions. Whether that is because of the conservatism of the Treasury or pressure from the banks, I do not know. There are several ways in which the Government could be a good deal more proactive in support of mutual institutions.
The case for building societies has already been well made. I emphasise that building societies are not a quaint, old-fashioned relic. We are not talking about institutions that should be preserved for the museum of financial institutions, but about institutions that are very effective in the marketplace. They offer highly competitive returns to their depositors, and competitive rates to borrowers because of the small margins on which they operate. In the past year, they have considerably increased their market share in a competitive marketplace, without subsidy or preference.
The dangerous assumption has been made that, because building societies have been very competitive in the mortgage market, they are strong enough to hold off pressures from carpetbaggers. Building societies have a particular, built-in, institutional weakness. Unlike plcs, which raise capital from the marketplace through new issues, building societies expand through accumulating reserves. That pot of gold attracts people who want pay-outs today rather than to think of the long term. Those reserves are inherently vulnerable, so it is important to have a system of regulation that recognises their vulnerability.
The previous and the present Governments have made a genuine attempt to strike a sensible balance between protection and exposure to pressure from members. I suspect that the balance may be wrong, but we shall see in the next day or so what has happened. The Government have taken a calculated risk. We hope that they are right, but it is possible that they have gambled wrongly.
If Nationwide goes down in the next 24 hours, it is clear that the other two big societies, Bradford and Bingley, and Britannia, will not survive much longer. Most of the smaller societies will be acquired fairly quickly by the banks. Within a relatively short time, there will be

little left of the building societies movement. Let us hope that that does not happen, but there is a very real risk that it will.
If it does not happen, I hope that the Government will think again about some of the measures that have been suggested by building societies to protect them from carpetbaggers. The Economic Secretary deserves some credit for having partially responded to the problem, by changing the thresholds. Some of the other measures proposed are still as relevant as ever.
It is possible to have too much democracy. Hon. Members would not want monthly or yearly general elections. That would no doubt increase democracy, but it would not necessarily make for better democracy. It would not make for better democracy if people were able to stand for Parliament without putting up a deposit. There must be hurdles. We are talking about quality as well as quantity.
Some of the riders suggested by building societies are appropriate. I say that with some caution, because I happen to have in my constituency the headquarters of the Building Societies Members Association, which is concerned about building society democracy, and frequently complains about building society managers ignoring members' rights. That is an important dimension, but even taking that into account, further regulatory provisions are required to prevent building societies from being too easily rolled over by carpetbaggers.
The hon. Member for Edmonton has suggested some provisions, but the key ones are to raise the number of people required to nominate board members, and the number of people who can introduce a resolution. It would still be a relatively small number—a few hundred rather than 50—but they would be important additional provisos. Increasing the time gap between people becoming members and voting in an election is another small change that could be crucial in shifting the balance within building societies. I hope that the Economic Secretary will have a fresh look at such provisions, especially if the building societies survive this ordeal by fire
The Government should also examine the regulatory and tax provisions that apply to other mutuals. One of the most depressing features of this year's Finance Bill was the rather abrupt way in which the Treasury dealt with the taxation provisions applying to friendly societies. They are a small part of the savings market, but they are very important for low-income savers, especially those for whom the traditional instrument is the £20-a-month, long-term, 10-year, insurance-linked savings bond. Many working-class families have traditionally used that as a way of setting aside money for a rainy day.
Under current tax provisions, the tax-free allowance is low. Prompted by the Association of Friendly Societies, I suggested during debates on the Finance Bill that that should be raised. It was raised slowly under the previous Government, and the present Government should be more ambitious. My suggestion was slapped down on the grounds that it would involve cost, although that is almost certainly wrong, because the introduction of tax-free savings increases the amount of taxable savings in the friendly societies. Whatever the technicalities, the Government should look closely at the matter. Friendly societies are important and should be encouraged, especially in the new environment of individual savings accounts.
The regulation of friendly societies should be examined. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) contains the first ever friendly society, the Braemar. He has said that such societies are small, and deal with small savers. The regulatory costs for serving such savers are prohibitive, and far in excess of the amounts involved. The system of regulation is often heavy-handed. It was probably introduced with good intentions, but it is not properly applicable to institutions such as friendly societies. I hope that the Government will look at that.
Another type of mutual society has not been mentioned today, but it deserves scrutiny. Credit unions are important in the United States. There may be good reasons for the movement's greater size there, where the banking and building society movements did not develop as they did in Britain. Credit unions are underdeveloped here, and they could be much bigger. The Government should examine the regulatory system under which they operate. There were changes in, I think, 1996, when the previous Government raised the savings threshold for credit unions. The National Consumer Council has suggested that that could be creatively updated and revised.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke about life assurance companies. Building societies, credit unions, friendly societies and life assurance companies are different aspects of the mutual movement. The Government and previous Governments have tended to look at the problems piecemeal. By way of the Prime Minister's social exclusion unit or through some such all-embracing body, the whole issue of mutual institutions could be examined in the round. Their tax and regulatory treatment could be studied comprehensively to see whether mutuality could be boosted. That should not be done by giving them unreasonable protection, and they should certainly not be protected from market competition, but we should see whether a much more friendly environment can be created. I hope that the Economic Secretary can lift the issue out of the narrow Treasury, regulatory and tax environment, into a much broader context.

Mr. David Lock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate, and on his work on the all-party building societies group.
I should like to declare three interests. First, I have a private pension with Equitable Life. I chose that company because I wanted profits from investments to be returned to members, rather than being given to shareholders with no other interest in the society. Secondly, I am secretary of the all-party occupational pensions group. Such pensions are provided by a mutual association which has provided an enormous amount of benefit in this century, and suffer from many of the problems that are faced by building societies. Thirdly, I am currently undertaking an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with the Nationwide building society. [Interruption.] I have no inside information on the vote. As I am sure hon. Members know, the Nationwide is not conducting the count: it is being scrutinised externally.
Like many hon. Members who have been on other IPT fellowships, I am grateful to Nationwide staff for their time, care and patience. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that, at this time, the Nationwide staff are busy, but they explained their organisation to us, told us what makes it tick, and gave us an insight into a complex and impressive operation.
The public rely on mutual organisations, particularly building societies, to conduct some of the most serious financial transactions of their lives. Those people are in it long-term, and without the building society movement there would not be the present property-owning democracy. However, as hon. Members have said, that is being prejudiced by the get-rich-quick philosophy of the 1980s, which is still with us in the shape of the demutualisation carpetbaggers.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, after the last major demutualisation, there was so much money sloshing about that it distorted the retail economy? We may still be suffering from that, and perhaps that major input of money has caused interest rates to be slightly higher than they might otherwise have been.

Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend is right. I understand that the windfall produced a cash injection larger than that stimulated by any Budget since the war.
People who invest in building societies are exercising choice, rather like the choice that is exercised in investing in a greyhound. If they watch it going around the track a few times and decide that they do not like how it runs, they should not try to vote to convert it into the hare. They have invested in a greyhound, and they are stuck with it.
Such reasoning applies to executives and board members, as well as to members of societies. If people want to join the board of a financial organisation that focuses on maximising profits to shareholders, they should get themselves elected to a bank. For people who are on the board of a mutual organisation, no amount of free shares, share options or other freebies should encourage them to abandon the basis of the organisation to which they have been elected.
I do not accept the business case for conversion. Other hon. Members have set out the grounds for that, and I shall not go over them. There is a compelling business case, now being demonstrated in a competitive market, that mutual organisations have the edge. For example, the current standard bank variable rate is 8.95 per cent., but the building society rate is about 8.1 per cent. That is because the costs of converted building societies are increased by about 40 per cent. by the need to pay savers. I would prefer those moneys to go back to investors. In June last year, the Paymaster General said:
Abbey National, which was the first mutual society to convert, has largely maintained its customer profile."—[Official Report, 23 June 1997; Vol.296, c. 653.]
Despite demutualisation, experience to date is good. Since that time, the outlook has not been so rosy, because money is flowing into the mutuals, attracted by their competitive advantage. It is interesting to note that the chief executive of Abbey National bank plc was quoted as saying at about that time:
there is no long-term future in the mortgage market".


It is not surprising that the bank takes that view, because it seems that it simply cannot compete.
There is another reason for the importance of building societies, and it relates to their local and regional functions. To get a mortgage decision from some banks, it is necessary only to make a call on an anonymous phone line, answer a series of questions, and, regardless of one's personal position, family or area, get a decision that is generated purely by computer. Building societies have a local focus, and are adaptable.
There is a third difference, and it is in the way that building societies do business. They are owned by their members, and any profit belongs to the customers. They are judged on their services to customers, not on the profit made for the organisation. I can give an example of that from the time that I worked with the Nationwide. It was approached by some mortgage brokers and asked whether it would promote a certain policy. The brokers presented it to the society on the basis: "Your members want this protection, and there will be a reasonable premium, but the payout will be very low, so you and I will be able to make a considerable profit."
Had the building society been a bank, it would have been prepared to accept that deal. However, as it was owned by its members, it said, "So you want us to promote a policy to our members which is not actually in their interests or to their benefit. Although they may think they need this cover, you and I know that the payouts will be low, which means that there is no value in it for our members. No, we are not prepared to do that." That is the crucial difference in the way that membership affects business decisions.
I appreciate the fine balance that the Government must ensure between proper financial regulation and encouraging the mutual market. I echo much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said. The Government should not be tempted by the fence—sitting on it is not appropriate, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—particularly the competition between the carpetbaggers and the long-term interest.
I invite the Government to consider four areas. The first is the number of members needed to kick start demutualisation.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of pure short-term greed prevailing over long-term loss of customer choice? In my constituency is one of the smallest building societies in Britain, the Chorley building society. We are worried that, if people cash their chips overnight, that will be the end of customer choice in my area, because the society is too small to become a bank. I am sure that that is also true of societies in other constituencies.

Mr. Lock: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government need to raise the number of members needed to kick-start demutualisation.
The second area is the number of people needed to nominate to a board, which is also low. Thirdly, there is the turnout needed for success. Unions in the workplace need a 40 per cent. turnout, but only 25 per cent. is needed to sell off someone's financial heritage. The percentage should be raised. There should be a time limit on anyone

who votes in a ballot. Selling off long-standing assets should be the privilege only of those members who have had a long-standing interest in the society.

Mr. Tony McNulty: In my brief speech, I want to concentrate on the bandits who call themselves demutualisers. I need no excuse to include in that Murray Financial, from which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) gets £12,000 a year. Out of courtesy, I notified the right hon. Gentleman that I might have a little chat about him this morning.
Ken Murray, who launched Murray Financial, is an old hand at banditry. He set up the Cairngorm investment trust and J. P. Cairngorm. Despite the view of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the company is a bandits' trust for demutualisation. An article in the Financial Times last September stated that Cairngorm claimed that the
imminent restructuring of the UK financial services sector will be the biggest single money-making opportunity in the UK over coming years, and will provide enormous potential for profit for those who have the vision to take advantage of this change.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McNulty: Very briefly.

Mr. Purchase: I will be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this matter, and I want to add to the sum of his knowledge. Birmingham Midshires building society is a victim of the very tactic referred to by my hon. Friend, and it needs strongly to resist it.

Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I am aware that that building society is based in Wolverhampton, despite its name.
The Financial Times said that those bandits, through their advertising, are targeting the general public rather than institutional investors. It says that they offer
handsome financial inducements to financial advisers who recommend the trust to clients. The words 'mug punters' spring to mind.
Effectively, they are the financial boot boys of the 1990s, doing in just as crooked a way what the pension mis-sellers were doing in the 1980s. They should be declared as such. It would be a travesty for anyone on the Opposition Front Bench to have anything to do with them.
Mr. Murray has said:
There are over 100 sizeable financial institutions. In 10 years, there will be six to eight.
The clear implication, especially for mutual building societies, is that he wants his gravy, he wants his cut from demutualisation, he wants it now, and he does not care about the services rendered by the mutuals, about their strengths or about their virtues. His plan is to asset-strip and wreck, and he is now focusing on the mutual societies.
Unfortunately, the trail of City cronies with the blood of mutual societies on their hands does not end at Mr. Murray's doorstep. The right hon. Member for Wokingham will be assisted in his future conquests of consumer choice by two other expert hands. His fellow


directors at Murray Financial include Philip Court, the former chief executive of the Birmingham Midshires building society—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is sailing close to the wind in his references to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I remind him that, if he wishes to launch a full criticism of another right hon. or hon. Member, he must do so by substantive motion, not in the way that he is doing now.

Mr. McNulty: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In addition to Philip Court, who was also involved in Cairngorm with Mr. Murray, the directors include Chris Jones, a former executive with the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society, which is now part of Lloyds TSB. One has already overseen the demutualisation of a building society, and both have insider knowledge of how they operate. Both are, in effect, demutualising henchmen, out for a quick buck and no more. They could not care less about the services that mutuals provide.
Other connections could be made. The company directors' register lists a number of companies, principally in Glasgow, called Murray—Murray this, Murray that and Murray the other. I do not suggest that they are all linked to Murray Financial, but one of them, Murray Enterprise, has as one of its directors a Mr. C. Jones—who may or may not be related to the C. Jones who was formerly of Cheltenham and Gloucester building society and who is now a demutualisation bandit. Murray Enterprise is part of a reputable group in Scotland, part of which is chaired by the newly ennobled George Younger. He also happens to be chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland. That is fine; I am not suggesting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that, when he is referring to a Member of the other place, he should call him the noble Lord. The stricture that I applied in the case of the right hon. Member for Wokingham also applies to Members of the other place.

Mr. McNulty: I fully accept that, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All that I will say in passing about the Royal Bank of Scotland is that it has just recently confirmed a £4 million overdraft for the Conservative party.
Perhaps we should not worry unnecessarily about the record of Cairngorm or Murray Financial, because they are not particularly good at what they do—but they do it on the back of money they take from private investors. If they are not pension mis-sellers, they may be the Barlow Clowes of the 1990s. Either way, they are corporate charlatans. They are raising funds with the aim of wrecking mutual societies.
I say to Conservative Members who dabble with mutual society wreckers that they may prefer to join a new Brit pop band that happens to be called Redwood, rather than the predatory bandits from Murray Financial, who, as demutualisers, come bearing gifts but ultimately want to asset-strip and no more.
It is a real pity that any hon. Member is remotely involved in such disreputable business. No one is suggesting that any hon. Member has used their position to change the policies of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not by clear implication accuse another hon. Member of disreputable behaviour. It would be proper for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark, or to make it clear that he did not intend to make such an accusation.

Mr. McNulty: I certainly shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the disreputable business of those companies; I would not impugn any hon. Member for behaving disreputably. I fully and happily withdraw the remark.
If anyone in the corporate sector wants anything to do with demutualisers such as Murray Financial, he or she should think twice. Demutualisers are not there to serve the interests of mutual societies' current or future savers. I heartily endorse what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said in this debate—long may mutual societies continue. I hope that the resounding vote at Nationwide shows the way ahead.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I should state at the outset that I have twice been a beneficiary of cash payments—once as a result of being a long-standing investor with the National and Provincial building society, and once as a result of being a policyholder with Scottish Amicable.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this debate. He, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and I have fairly recently emerged blinking into the daylight after considering the Finance Bill in Committee for eight weeks. It is a pleasure to be reunited again so soon.
In his time in the House, the hon. Member for Edmonton has already shown a close and informed interest in the future of building societies. Today, once again, he has cogently stated his case. I generally share his support for the institution of mutuality, and his wish for it to continue—although I am not quite sure that I am as gloomy about its prospects as some hon. Members who have spoken today.
This has been an harmonious and useful debate, although I regret the rather sour note that entered into it in the previous speech. Today is not an occasion to try to make cheap party political comments. The speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) reflects badly on him, not on my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
Mutual societies in the United Kingdom go back over 200 years. They were created by their members to help themselves obtain that most basic need—a house. As a Conservative, I instinctively support the principle of self-help. I believe that there could be a continuing role for mutual societies in the provision of welfare benefits more generally, as an adjunct to, if not a substitute for, the state. I am told by the hon. Member for Edmonton that such self-help may be some version of "the third way", but I have always regarded it is a sound Conservative principle. However, I do not wish to be drawn down the path of party political philosophy.
Although there has been over the years a steady decline in the number of mutual societies—some were wound up as termination societies, whereas others merged—only in the past 10 years has the building society sector changed beyond recognition. There is no doubt that some mutual societies had become somewhat remote from their members. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) strongly made that point, and drew attention to the fact that some societies have concentrated more on trying to attract new business, consequently sometimes neglecting the interests of current policyholders. Consequently, the advantages of mutuality have perhaps become less apparent.
There is also no doubt that increasing competition from other financial institutions has put pressure on societies to offer a wider range of services to their members.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If mutuality is such a sound Conservative principle, will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to dissociate himself from those who advocate demutualisation or associate themselves with demutualisers?

Mr. Whittingdale: As I shall say later, the merits or demerits of mutuality versus plc status are finely balanced. Although there are advantages in mutuality, retaining that status is a matter not for me but for a society's members. The position of both the previous Government and the current Government has been that the decision is for the membership. However, I shall expand on those points later.
The history of the change goes back only about 10 years. The Building Societies Act 1986 was the first legislation to allow building societies to become banks if they wished to do so, and it was a liberalising measure. It also allowed mutual societies to provide more services while remaining mutual. The Act led to the flotation, as we know, of Abbey National, Woolwich, Alliance and Leicester, and all the other societies that have converted. However, in each case, the decision was taken by the membership itself.
The attraction of releasing the capital—in the form of cash payments or shares—that was locked up in the societies was, of course, one of the principal motives for those voting in favour of a flotation. Although there is not necessarily anything wrong with such a motive, it is not the only reason for demutualisation—the pros and cons of which, as I said, are finely balanced.
The Building Societies (Distributions) Act 1997, which was passed with all-party support in the final days of the previous Parliament, has already been mentioned in this debate. Some hon. Members have said that that Act was intended to make it easier for societies to convert. However, it did not seek to influence members' decision, and further liberalised the rules governing building societies to enable them to compete more equally with other financial institutions. As the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury said on the Second Reading—in an accurate, if not entirely original, comment—the purpose of the Bill was to give societies a "level playing field".
In the same debate, the then Opposition spokesman said:
Labour's position on conversion is that it is for members to decide whether they want their building society to convert or to remain as a mutual."—[Official Report, 10 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 82.]

That position is, of course, right, and it has always been the position of the Conservative party. However, I entirely accept—as several hon. Members have said in this debate—that there is benefit in diversity in the financial services sector, to provide competition and choice for customers.
Mutual status brings advantages, and it is important to recognise them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale mentioned the philosophy of mutuality, and that point was picked up by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). Undoubtedly some investors regard mutual societies as a safer and more sympathetic haven for their money.
Mutual societies also have clear economic advantages. Professor David Llewellyn has compared the records of mutuals and plcs and—as the hon. Member for Edmonton said—stated that societies undoubtedly have a "margin advantage" due to the absence of external capital that has to be remunerated, allowing societies both to build up their reserves and to offer highly competitive mortgage and saving rates.
That advantage has been borne out in practice. As several hon. Members have said, the current margin spread is greater for societies that have converted than for those remaining as societies. Consequently, remaining building societies have been very successful in winning increased market share. Building societies are therefore fighting back effectively.
In the next 24 hours, we shall learn the outcome of the vote of the Nationwide membership. I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) is undertaking, or has just completed, an Industry and Parliament trust fellowship, and entirely endorse his comments on the value of those fellowships. It is perhaps surprising that the Nationwide vote is occurring only a year after the previous one, in which candidates wishing to demutualise the society were rejected. Although it would be premature to speculate on the result, like other hon. Members I hope that Nationwide members will once again firmly endorse the board's position.
Events at Nationwide demonstrate some of the problems that have been mentioned by every hon. Member who has spoken so far—the instability and uncertainty caused for mutual societies by perpetual pressure, often from a minority of investors, to demutualise and become a plc. We have heard stories about queues outside building societies, telephone systems being inundated with calls and the difficulties that has caused to genuine investors.
There are some safeguards. Some societies have tried to deter speculators by raising their minimum deposit levels, although that raises the danger that they will penalise legitimate small savers. The 1986 Act introduced the two-year rule that forbids the distribution of cash bonuses to shareholding members of less than two years and to borrowers. Nevertheless, I recognise the real concerns expressed by the remaining societies that they are potentially faced with unending disruption and instability caused by annual challenges from the proponents of conversion.
The Government have already raised the threshold for turnout for those voting in favour of conversion to 50 per cent., but that does not address the problem of elections in which candidates can be nominated by just 50 members. Societies such as Nationwide and the Bradford and


Bingley have asked for greater protection. I have sympathy with them, but, in attempting to find a solution, we have to be careful not to diminish the accountability of the board to the members.
Mutual societies were created for the benefit of small savers, and it is essential that their interests and rights are fully protected. Members have already shown that they are prepared to back the judgment of their board and to take a long-term view. I have no doubt that they are better placed than anyone else to decide the future of the societies they own.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): First, I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate, and in paying tribute to his excellent work as chairman of the all-party building societies group. He has pursued the interests of building societies with great vigour, and I have regular contact with him.
By and large, we have had a measured and sensible debate about an issue of great public interest. I take no lessons from anyone about mutuality: I am unique in the House, as the only mutual bank is in my constituency. Airdrie savings bank, which I joined at the age of seven, is the last remaining mutual bank. The silver savings bank that I was given at the age of seven still sits on my desk. It still has money in it, because they will not take it out for me. So I take no lectures about mutuality. Like many hon. Members from working-class backgrounds, I know that the shilling-a-week man was a lifeline for many poorer households, and I have a great affection for friendly societies.
It is inevitable that much of the debate has been about building societies, given the events of the past 24 hours and the fact that we are looking forward to the result of the ballot on the Nationwide building society. Let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I do not have a crystal ball, so I do not know what will happen in respect of the Nationwide, but I emphasise that the decision will not be taken by Parliament or by the Government: it will be taken by the members of the society. That is the strength of mutuality. There is a very fine line between the interests of the members and the protection of the board.
The boards of building societies look after themselves rather well, and it is not out of line to allow the membership to challenge them. For example, board members of the Nationwide recently awarded themselves salary increases ranging from 26 per cent. to 49 per cent. Nor are they exactly on the minimum wage. The lowest salary is £250,000. Frankly, we must keep the issue in perspective. The boards want protection, but they must also respond to the anxieties of their membership.
Many hon. Members have suggested that the Government should intervene to protect societies from demutualisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) made an extremely enlightening speech. I hope that many have taken note of the activities of some members in pushing for demutualisation of building societies.
However, the Government can do only so much to protect building societies. Frankly, building societies themselves have some responsibility for making the case

for mutuality—a point that I have made to them repeatedly. Last November, when I raised the turnout threshold to 50 per cent., I stressed that every building society board that has recommended against conversion has been successful. I hope that that is repeated tomorrow, but the building societies must make sure that they take on board the requirement to provide the maximum service to their membership.
Before the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) wandered off—it is a good job hon. Members do not have to stamp time cards—he claimed that the Government had been nobbled by the banks over the 50 per cent. threshold. That is absolute and arrant nonsense. One reason for taking the decision to move to a 50 per cent. threshold was to discourage carpetbaggers.
I could have gone further and raised the threshold to 75 per cent., but the average turnout in respect of the Nationwide and other conversions has been 75 per cent. On the most recent occasion, 97 per cent. of the Nationwide members who voted were against conversion. If the threshold were 75 per cent., 74 per cent. of members voted and they were all in favour of conversion, the society would not be able to convert. That is not democracy. I realise that we have to do what we can to make the case for mutuality, but we must not do it by destroying mutuality.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the number of backers that are required before there can be a challenge. Let us get that into perspective. It took Michael Hardern two years to get the 50 backers he needed for the Nationwide elections last year. The key element has to be selling the case for mutuality.
The 1997 Act was supported by Labour in opposition, because we recognised that building societies must be given the opportunity to provide an even better service to their members. It gave building societies more power, greater supervision and more accountability.
There must be a careful balance. Of course there are carpetbaggers and rather eccentric people seeking to be directors of building societies. Let me make it clear that it is a matter for the board to act if it considers that any member applying for election is not fit to do so.
If the chairman of a building society board considers that a nominated candidate does not have the appropriate qualities to be a member of the board, he is fully entitled to inform members of his views. It is then for members to decide who they want to trust with the safekeeping of their savings, and the direction that they want the society to take. If an inappropriate person is elected, the Building Societies Commission can consider whether such a person is fit and proper to be a director of a building society.
Building societies are fully entitled to take such measures as the legislation or their rules allow to restrict account opening and preserve services to bona fide members, but there are dangers in that. We spoke about social exclusion. The hon. Member for Twickenham suggested, as if it were a brand new idea, that the social exclusion unit should look at friendly societies, but it has been doing so since last May. The friendly societies and the concept of mutuality, enlarging the access to financial services for low income earners, will continue to be a critical part of Government policy. If we are to move people from welfare to work, we must give them access to financial services, as that is the ladder out of social exclusion and poverty.
Friendly societies are less well known than building societies, but they have a long and proud history. As I said, the shilling-a-week man continues to be important in the community that I represent. Friendly societies are regarded as social, friendly and honest. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, they are trusted. It is about relationships, and they were built on the principles of self-help and mutual support. They are important institutions, and the movement is healthy. Total funds are more than £10 billion, and membership is estimated at more than 5 million. I am encouraged by the enthusiasm shown by the friendly society movement to play a part in welfare reform.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Given the massive mis-selling of pensions that there has been, will my hon. Friend consider whether some companies are fit to be trusted to deal in the upcoming individual savings accounts? Will she give a leg up to mutuals on that?

Mrs. Liddell: I have already made it clear that we shall examine the performance of companies, mutual or not, on pensions mis-selling when we consider ISAs and stakeholder pensions. My hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform is doing valuable work with the friendly society movement.
Credit unions are often the unsung heroes of the mutual sector. The Government are determined to give a new future to credit unions and co-operatives. They are at the heart of the third way—they are rooted in our history, but they hold the future for many people.
I commend the debate and look forward to the mutual sector increasing in strength. The Government will do everything that we can to ensure that.

Sellafield and Dounreay (Discharges)

11 am

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I hope that hon. Members will bear with me this morning. I have a lot to get through and others will want to contribute to the debate.
Today's debate is opportune, because today and tomorrow Ospar—the Oslo and Paris convention on the protection of the North sea and the north-east Atlantic—is meeting in Sintra, Portugal. Ministers from 16 member countries will be meeting to hammer out solutions on oil rig disposal, chemical pollution in the sea and radioactive discharges into the marine environment.
The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment are representing the UK in Portugal. They have an awkward task. All the Nordic countries oppose the UK's stance on radioactive discharges into the marine environment. The Irish Government consider such discharges to be objectionable and unacceptable. During a visit to Downing street a few weeks ago, the Norwegian Prime Minister registered his protest. Nobody disputes the fact that there is international concern.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Norwegians are also concerned about carbon in the atmosphere. The other side of the coin is more coal burning and fossil-fuel-related power stations.

Ms Cunningham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's long-term interest in the issue, but he cannot argue that the alternative to discharging radioactive waste into the marine environment is necessarily coal burning. Those two do not go together.

Sir Robert Smith: When she replies, perhaps the Minister will clarify what processes require radioactive discharge into the marine environment. It may not be necessary to discharge into the marine environment to achieve the goals of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Ms Cunningham: There are two issues. The hon. Member for Linlithgow is talking about the alternatives to nuclear energy, but I am talking about the separate—although in my view related—issue of discharges that result from reprocessing waste.
We are polluting the seas of other countries and our seas with substances whose radioactivity will last for hundreds of thousands of years. Technetium-99 is one such substance. I am not a physics expert, so my comments on the issue have been taken from more technical documents. Technetium-99 is a radio-isotope with a half-life of 213,000 years. That means that it will take 213,000 years for the radioactivity to reduce to half its current level, and another 213,000 years for a further reduction to half that level. That carries on ad infinitum. We have to be sure of ourselves before we start pumping something seemingly indestructible into the environment, but we are not sure about technetium-99. The Government are allowing Sellafield to pump it daily into the sea.
A Norwegian radiation protection authority report published in February this year says that there are many uncertainties about technetium-99 and that further investigation is needed before a full dose assessment can


be implemented, yet the Government see fit to allow its dumping into the sea because no one has yet proved it to be harmful.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: How does the hon. Lady measure the significance of such discharges against the natural background radiation in the environment?

Ms Cunningham: There is a debate about the existing level of background radiation and it has been argued that some of what is pumped into the marine environment does not exceed the levels of background radiation. I shall explain my argument against that point later.
We know that technetium bioaccumulates in shellfish, particularly lobsters, and in seaweed. It has been found in lobsters around Sellafield in concentrations 42 times the European intervention level. Intervention levels are set out for use after a nuclear emergency such as that at Chernobyl.
Samples taken by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Dumfries and Galloway show that the currents wash the liquid waste on to the shores of south-west Scotland, putting levels of technetium in seaweed at five times the European intervention level. The levels have trebled in the past 12 months. The technetium washes west towards Ireland and northwards along the west coast of Scotland. It reaches the North sea within nine months and continues towards Scandinavia, where levels of the radio-isotope have been found to have increased fifteenfold since 1993.
Having looked at the figures from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, from SEPA and from Greenpeace, I am deeply concerned not just about the current levels of radioactivity in shellfish and seaweed, but about monitoring. The data appear to be inadequate and inconsistent, showing lobsters here and seaweed there, making comparisons between different years and different places difficult to calculate. I do not know whether that inconsistency in monitoring is deliberate to ensure that nobody is certain what is happening. Perhaps SEPA is not being given enough financial resources to do its part of the job properly and to carry out the thorough programmes of monitoring that should take place consistently from year to year.
Although Greenpeace has done a marvellous job of sampling and bringing the issue to the fore, its efforts have focused almost entirely on Sellafield. Dounreay also discharges waste into the sea. The results of that pollution are not documented to anything like the same extent, even though they are clearly felt in Scandinavia.
I have not yet mentioned the central issue of authorisation. Radioactive liquid would not pollute our seas without the authorisations of the environment agencies, sanctioned by central Government. The authorisations have been very generous, allowing reprocessing plants to pump out the by-products of their processes without fear of exceeding official limits. At Sellafield, the limit for technetium-99 used to be 10 terabecquerels per year. In 1994, the enhanced actinide removal plant—EARP—was opened at Sellafield. EARP separates quantities of certain radioactive substances, including plutonium, from the material that arises from the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—THORP—but it does not separate technetium-99.

Despite that, the arrival of EARP was hailed as the answer to the problem of dangerous waste and anything that had been through it was deemed to be safe to dump in the sea.
In 1994, the Environment Agency revised the authorisation level from the original level of 10 terabecquerels to a massive 200 terabecquerels. I return to the issue raised by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). The massive rise has opened the floodgates—the pun is not intended—allowing the dumping of years of accumulated technetium. Only 6 terabecquerels of technetium were discharged from Sellafield in 1993, but an astonishing 506 terabecquerels were discharged between 1993 and 1997.
It is therefore not surprising that radioactivity found in the marine environment soared in 1994, and has been rising progressively ever since. The Environment Agency is supposedly considering a reduction of the authorisation level to 90 terabecquerels, but I ask hon. Members not to be fooled by that and to remember that, only five years ago, the level was 10 terabecquerels. Since the Ospar convention originally set its objectives in 1992, the level has increased massively.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): The hon. Lady should also take into account the fact that the Environment Agency has told British Nuclear Fuels plc that it must investigate the matter and come up with abatement technology to take technetium-99 out of the system by 2000.

Ms Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that; I was going to raise it later.
Another concern, which we should not ignore and which has also been voiced by the Nordic Council of Ministers, among others, is that gaseous emissions will be allowed to increase because liquid ones have decreased. We should put talk of reductions into context and remind ourselves yet again of the time that technetium takes to decay. The speed with which we pipe it into the sea is almost immaterial.
At Dounreay, there is little technetium discharge, but a vast number of different radioactive materials are poured out, each with its own limit. Those authorisation levels have long been extremely high, allowing the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to discharge as much as it likes without any possibility of transgressing them. It is even in a position to claim, after leaks and accidents, that it has not exceeded authorised levels, which is very useful to it. Authorisation levels never seem to be exceeded; they just seem to be consistently increased.
SEPA recently conducted a consultation process as part of a review into authorisation levels for Dounreay. The situation has obviously changed since the Secretary of State for Scotland's announcement in June that the plant would be decommissioned. I would appreciate the Minister's advice on whether SEPA's consultation will be reopened in the light of the plant's new circumstances. I hope that it will, because the methods used to calculate discharge limits for Dounreay are absurd. SEPA recently accepted that the limits should more closely reflect the so-called need to discharge, but the criteria for setting them remains astonishingly unprescriptive.
SEPA's proposals appear to be based on the maximum design throughput of all the plants on site and on the fact that all plants would operate simultaneously. It further allowed an additional operating margin over the sum of the plants' design capacity, which ensured that whatever Dounreay could conceivably discharge would be within the set limits. That does not demonstrate, according to the Minister of the Environment, the Government's desire
to make progress on the question of reducing discharge to the marine environment",
or the need for
much tougher rules for sharply reducing discharges to sea of radioactive and hazardous waste".
We are allowing an environmental problem to pile up in our seas with no way of removing it. With every discharge, we are increasing the problem not only for future generations but for many people now. We are endangering the livelihoods of those in the marine economy and we are becoming a target for international protest. The United Kingdom, even under the new Government, is still proving to be the dirty man of Europe.
I was interested to note reports in The Scotsman on Friday that UKAEA has commissioned the Scottish universities research and reactor centre to conduct an aerial survey of the area around Dounreay with the specific purpose of identifying radiation hot spots. SEPA was apparently unimpressed with the UKAEA's earlier reports on off-site contamination and pressed it to do more. I am not surprised; there is already a fishing exclusion zone in the area around Dounreay as a combined result of radioactive discharges and the on-going leakage of solid fragments of waste on to the shore and into the sea. I shall resist the temptation to rehearse the list of Dounreay's failings, which some hon. Members will have heard me list before. I have made my point in previous debates.
Somebody else who has made a point on the issue is the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that there are some very interesting pictures of him from some years ago wearing a frogsuit outside Downing street in protest against the dumping of nuclear waste from ships at sea.
At last summer's Labour party conference, the party's national executive endorsed a resolution, which was adopted by the conference, calling for an independent review of nuclear waste and reprocessing policy. The Department of Trade and Industry has since denied that any such inquiry will take place—according to last month's Environmental Data Services report. At the same time, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has told us:
the Deputy Prime Minister…is considering the future of reprocessing."—[Official Report, 8 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 714.]
I hope that the position on any review or future consideration will be clarified. Apparently the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has also denied to Environmental Data Services that the Deputy Prime Minister is considering any such thing. Will the Minister enlighten us on that issue today? Many of us would like to know whether there will be an independent review of reprocessing and waste disposal.
The Government have displayed great confusion over nuclear issues in recent months. Sometimes, one gets the feeling that they are kept in the dark by nuclear operators just as much as the rest of us. The nuclear installations

inspectorate report was suppressed—or kept from Ministers—and, more recently, the Prime Minister scoffed at the idea of uranium going missing on site at Dounreay.
Although I do not want to cast doubt on the Prime Minister's veracity when standing at the Dispatch Box, a UKAEA scientist later claimed that the material was missing. Reports over the weekend add credence to the story. People at Dounreay claim that they have managed to find the missing uranium, which, according to other reports, was not missing. Whether it was missing depends on who tells the story. The mystery deepens; perhaps it is extending to the UK's approach to this week's meeting in Sintra.

Angela Eagle: To reinforce the message given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, the material unaccounted for is thought to have come about because of technical measurement errors in reprocessing. We have absolutely no evidence of material going missing. The matter is simply one of technical measurement concerning 30-year-old data.

Ms Cunningham: I appreciate the Minister's stance, which has been stated before. Unfortunately, subsequent reports have said that there were no accounting errors and that, in fact, there were losses—just as one knows when one loses one's keys in the living room that they are there somewhere, but one just does not know where. There is a mystery surrounding the issue.
Ministers have been cautious about making any commitments; even the ministerial briefing is ambiguous. It says:
We want to agree a strategy for radioactive substances that is demanding but achievable.
I am encouraged by the sentiment of that comment, but concerned that Ministers have not seen fit to make an explicitly positive statement in advance of the Ospar meeting. I heard an interview with the Deputy Prime this morning on Radio 4, after which, I must confess, I was none the wiser about the exact UK Government approach to the discussions.
There is a backlog of liquid waste at Sellafield. I do not deny that that is a problem, but let us be clear: reprocessing creates solid, liquid and gaseous waste. The longer we continue to reprocess, the bigger the problem we will have. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Cunningham: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis).

Mr. Dafis: My specific concern is, of course, with the possible effects of the discharge of radioactive material from Sellafield into the Irish sea, along the western coast of Wales. Dr. Chris Busby, who has done a great deal of work on low-level radiation, has recently suggested that the incidence of leukaemia among children along the western coast of Wales is about five times higher than that in inland


Wales, along the border with England. Surely that is prima facie evidence of a link between radioactive contamination and health.

Ms Cunningham: There has long been discussion about what, for want of a better phrase, I shall call cancer hot spots, near areas of contamination.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Ms Cunningham: I can see that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, but this will be the last intervention. I must press on.

Mr. Dalyell: When the hon. Lady was talking about the Deputy Prime Minister, she said that she was "none the wiser". May I gently ask her whether she has been to Dounreay or Sellafield? When I was a new Member of Parliament, I would not have dreamed of opening my mouth unless I had been to such places and heard what the people there had to say. In those days, we were frequently invited by Sir William Penney to go to such places. Has the hon. Lady been to them?

Ms Cunningham: No, I have not. It is an interesting concept to suggest that one is never expected to say anything in this place without having physical hands-on experience of the issue. If that were the case, very little would be debated in the House. Two or three members of the Scottish National party parliamentary group have been to Dounreay, as have SNP Members of the European Parliament. I am perfectly capable of reading the same information that every other Member of the House reads.
I find the hon. Gentleman's suggestion intriguing, and will watch with great interest the next debate in the House on foreign affairs or defence; no doubt it will be confined to those who have been to the countries in question, flown the aeroplanes, or been in the ships. I am afraid that I do not take what the hon. Gentleman said as a valid criticism.
If we stopped reprocessing, there would be a smaller quantity of waste to deal with in the longer term. That includes the liquid waste currently being discharged into the sea. With Dounreay we are already halfway there; commercial reprocessing contracts will no longer be taken on, although we have not been told how many still exist.
Decommissioning is under way, but the Government have been led to believe that
reprocessing is a necessary part of the decommissioning process".
In my view, and in that of many environmentalists, that is not true. The existing stockpiles of spent fuel at Dounreay should be stored above ground where they can be monitored, and retrieved if necessary. If we cease the reprocessing cycle straight away, the production of further unnecessary waste and discharges will be avoided.
The same should apply to THORP, which is apparently shut at the moment, as the result of a leak. As I understand it, no United Kingdom reprocessing plant is in working order at this stage. I am happy in the knowledge that no

reprocessing is taking place in Britain today, but I am concerned that the plants that are unfit today will be open again to carry on polluting and leaking tomorrow.
I have said many times, and I say again, that reprocessing should stop. It is a short-sighted practice which has become its own self-perpetuating problem. In exchanges over Dounreay I have argued that the false prospect of financial gain has led to an excessively casual attitude towards nuclear materials, and in a separate debate on plutonium earlier this year I argued that reprocessing leads unavoidably to global proliferation of weapons-grade material.
Today, I am arguing that reprocessing causes unnecessary and irreparable environmental pollution. All that points to a moratorium on reprocessing in the United Kingdom. The other options are, if not ideal, infinitely more sensible and easier for future generations to put right. On-site, above-ground storage, as close as possible to the point of origin, is by far the most environmentally friendly way to deal with the unwanted side products of nuclear power generation.

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

Ms Cunningham: I see the hon. Gentleman leaping to his feet, but I said that I would not take any more interventions. Perhaps I can guess what he wants to say. The SNP has long opposed the idea of Scottish exports of nuclear waste to other countries. [Interruption.] If hon. Members care to look at the record, they will discover, to use just one example, that, when the suggestion to store on site at Torness was made, the SNP supported the proposal, although it was refused in the end.
I concede that the decommissioning process necessarily involves by-products, and it is a matter for the experts whether such quantities should be discharged; that would be a subject for serious further discussion. Tough guidelines should be employed, even then, to ensure that no easy option is provided, whatever the context.
The development of abatement technology is another option, which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), has already raised. That would involve further developing methods for separating out dangerous substances from liquid waste. The technology to remove technetium-99 does not currently exist, and, to give the Department of Trade and Industry its due, it has asked BNFL to get to work immediately on developing such a process.
However, the United Kingdom relies on the maxim of BATNEEC—a rather clumsy acronym for "best available technology not entailing excessive cost"—so my concern is whether BNFL will develop abatement technology, or claim that it is too expensive.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms Cunningham: indicated assent.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for her courtesy. Would she be interested to know that the Environment Agency, in its draft authorisation for Sellafield, says:
Should the work to develop abatement technology show that it is not possible at a reasonable cost…then the discharge limit for Tc-99 will be reviewed and if necessary increased"?
Does that not increase my hon. Friend's worries?

Ms Cunningham: That goes back to the issues already raised in the debate about the fluctuating authorisation levels, which do not appear to relate to the real environmental concerns.
Ospar begins today, and various options are under consideration, each proposing a different degree of commitment. There is talk of gradually reducing discharges, with the ultimate aim of reaching background exposures. Alternative 2, drafted by the Governments of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Ireland, requires Governments to
continuously reduce discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimate aim of concentrations in the environment near background values for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive substances".
Norway has also proposed text for the Sintra ministerial statement to make that even more explicit. It wants Ospar to say:
we recognise that reprocessing is the major source of radionuclide discharges to the maritime area…we will make every endeavour to reach the target of cessation of such discharges as quickly as possible".
The key phrase to bear in mind is:
close to zero for artificial radioactive substances".
The Minister for the Environment has hinted that he is prepared to consider that option, and I hope that he does. I understand that France, the other nation in Ospar with reprocessing facilities, has decided to support it, albeit with a caveat of its own. However, our Minister has been quoted as saying:
I don't accept that there is a distinction or contradiction between what we are trying to achieve at Ospar and the current discharge application being made in regard to Sellafield.
That goes against everything that I have said. Sellafield authorisations, even if they are decreased to the level proposed by the Environment Agency—if, indeed, at the end of the day the agency proposes a decrease—will still be nine times higher than they were six years ago when Ospar originally formed its objectives.
Does the Minister really want us to be seen yet again as the dinosaur at Ospar, the dirty man of Europe? I hope not. It is the United Kingdom's responsibility to behave like a good neighbour, and to recognise when irresponsible actions taken on its own shores have an impact on shores overseas.
I remind hon. Members of some of the serious words of protest that the Government have received from overseas. In February, the Nordic Council of Ministers wrote that its members were
concerned about further releases of radioactive substances to the marine environment and urge the Government of the United Kingdom to stop discharges of Technetium-99".
The Irish Government wrote of
the health and environmental threat associated with the UK nuclear installations",

and said that they were
vehemently opposed to the continuation of nuclear operations at Sellafield and to any expansion of the nuclear industry in Britain",
and found discharges into the Irish sea
objectionable and unacceptable".
Reprocessing entails the discharge of what many people and Governments regard as repugnant radioactive substances into our seas and on to our shores and those of our neighbours. It is a growing environmental problem which should be stopped now. It is creating increasing international friction. Radioactive discharges into the marine environment need to be tackled with immediate action and an immediate reduction to a figure as close to zero as the decommissioning process will allow.
The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, who have a history of sympathy for that cause, now have the ideal opportunity to solve the problem. Ospar provides an international forum at which a binding commitment can be made which will ease domestic concern and reduce international pressure. The future can be made safer and we can employ our workers not in polluting the environment but in cleaning it up. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have had a very courteous letter from the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), which he has also sent to the Minister, saying that he cannot be here because of his long-standing commitment to speak at an award ceremony of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music. The right hon. Gentleman said:
If I had been present, I would have wished to raise the delay in completing the NRPB survey at Dounreay commissioned by SEPA. I hope you might find it possible to give an indication as to when the findings of the NRPB assessment will be available.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer that question.
May I ask two direct factual questions of the Minister, who is strongly supported by officials? The hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) said that, in lobsters, the level of technetium-99 was 42 times the European intervention level and that, in seaweed, it was five times the European intervention level. Do my hon. Friend's expert advisers concur with those figures?
In recent years, the discharges to the marine environment from Dounreay have been reduced progressively. The effect of those discharges to the group in Caithness that is most exposed to discharges from Dounreay—I am referring to the so-called critical group—is now less than 1 per cent. of the dose that the group receives from the natural background. Do the Government agree with that statement? Do they agree that the levels of discharges to the sea are a small fraction—currently less than 10 per cent.—of the discharge authorisation and that Dounreay has not exceeded its authorisation in the past 20 years? In truth, there have been "unplanned" discharges as recently as September 1996, due to the dissolver leak, but those have not led to discharge levels above authorisation. Will the Minister confirm in her reply that there have not been discharges above authorisation?
New plant for treating liquid effluent is being installed. That will further reduce the levels of radioactivity discharged from Dounreay. Do the Government think that that is proceeding as quickly as it should?
There are radioactive particles in the marine environment as a result of historic activities in the 1960s at Dounreay. It has been confirmed that those particles have not been released as a result of present activities on the site. The likelihood of a member of the public coming into contact with one of those particles is judged by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to be extremely remote, but we have to await the outcome of an independent assessment commissioned by the National Radiological Protection Board. That is the assessment about which the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who represents Dounreay, is concerned.
On Sellafield, are the Government satisfied with the level of activity undertaken by BNFL to reduce discharges? I have been to Sellafield on several occasions, sometimes in the company of the Member of Parliament who represents Sellafield, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my squash partner and friend of many years, and I know it well.
Through an investment programme of £750 million at Sellafield, BNFL has reduced the discharges of principal radionuclides to the Irish sea to about 1 per cent. of peak levels in the 1970s. Do the Minister's advisers accept that statement? The Environment Agency is currently completing its response, after public consultation, to an application by BNFL to vary its discharge authorisations to achieve a further net reduction in the permitted level of discharges to the Irish sea. Are the Government satisfied with BNFL's efforts in that respect?
Is it not a fact that discharges cannot be completely stopped for the foreseeable future because, as my previous remarks demonstrate, most of them relate to historic clean-up or Magnox reprocessing? Ceasing Magnox reprocessing would force the early closure of the Magnox stations, which, assuming the electricity was replaced by gas-fired power, would lead to an extra 16 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted in the UK each year. The Government must reduce discharges of CO2 by 35 million tonnes by 2010 to meet their commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction. How, without taking advantage of Sellafield and Dounreay, can we even attempt to fulfil the commitment that the Government have rightly made to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere?
I have another question concerning a letter that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 4 June, asking whether the Scottish universities' research was correct in suggesting that Sellafield has increased concentrations of carbon-14 in the north-east Irish sea to up to 35 times the normal background level. My question was prompted by a statement in the New Scientist of 6 June, which aroused my curiosity. On 15 July, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) courteously replied:
I understand that neither the Environment Agency nor MAFF can confirm the figures quoted in New Scientist, that carbon-14 in sea water near Sellafield is 35 times the background level. However, MAFF routinely check the carbon-14 concentration in seafood at the end of the Sellafield discharge pipe, where levels are likely to be highest and have measured levels up to eight times the background level. The radiation exposure of the most exposed members of the public (the critical group) from carbon-14 is only four microSieverts per annum, which is 0.4 per cent. of the international dose limit of 1,000 microSieverts per annum.

Surely one can conclude from that letter that there is no cause for alarm.
The Minister's letter continued:
Both aerial and liquid discharges of radioactivity from Sellafield are limited by certificates of authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, granted by the Environment Agency. The discharges of carbon-14 to sea via the marine pipeline increased from 1994 due to a planned plant modification that ensures the carbon-14 is discharged to sea and not to the atmosphere so as to reduce the overall impact of this radionuclide. The impact on the critical group is less for sea discharges than for an equivalent aerial discharge. The Environment Agency keeps the discharge authorisations under review.
Would I be right in thinking that the Government have total confidence in the Environment Agency and in its keeping that under review, and that, again, there is no cause for alarm?
The Minister finally says:
Recent events at Dounreay and THORP demonstrate the Government's commitment to strong regulation of the nuclear industry to ensure the safety of the workforce and the public at large.
One of the most wonderful days that I have ever had in my public life was on an official visit to THORP, a marvellous technical performance by British engineering, which is one of the wonders of the modern world. I am an unapologetic champion of THORP as a great achievement of British engineering, and something that is able to do a great deal of good. I say "a great deal of good" for the reason that I interrupted the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham)—that, without nuclear power, heaven knows how we shall achieve any ability to control the nasty things of all sorts that are being put into the atmosphere.

Sir Robert Smith: Pursuing that argument, does the Member really believe that THORP is crucial to having a nuclear industry?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that all Members are honourable Members.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, without THORP, there could not be a nuclear industry?

Mr. Dalyell: There could be a nuclear industry, but it would not be anything like as effective a nuclear industry.
The Minister says:
At THORP the plant was shut down following leakage from pipework within a contained cell.
But she adds:
In neither incident was there an adverse radiological impact to the workforce or the general public. HSE will not permit either plant to reopen until it is satisfied that they can be restarted safely.
I use this opportunity to ask the Minister about the latest advice from the Health and Safety Executive on the matter because, the sooner THORP reopens, the better for a lot of us.
Finally, on a personal note, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, I am greatly alarmed by the effect of what is happening on the morale of the work force at Dounreay. Neville Chamberlain and others really brought it home to me that, unless we keep up the morale of the work force and the challenge and seriousness of the tasks that they are asked to perform, there could be real risks, which there


have not been in the past. In all this, do the Government have a clear strategy for many years to keep up the morale of those at Dounreay who have served society, the community and the world very well?

Sir Robert Smith: The last point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is valid. The current openness about incidents that happened, sometimes very much in the past and at a different stage of technical understanding and knowledge, makes them newsworthy. Those incidents of the past—it is a matter of debate whether they are the sins of the past—are then visited on the current work force. It is important to recognise that the work force is composed of professional people doing a professional job.
There is a debate within society about whether it wants that job to continue, along with the question of what society wants to take place at that plant, but we should recognise the professionalism of the work force. There is the danger of it being labelled with the name of the place at which it works. There was much excitement last week, and it seems that, if one can link two famous things such as Brent Spar and Dounreay, it is even more exciting. The environmental debate can suffer if we try too hard to link everything that sounds dangerous or has a history of being dangerous.
As the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) made clear, the debate is timely, and I congratulate her on obtaining it. It is disappointing that the Government are negotiating today and tomorrow at the international conference on the Ospar convention despite our not having debated in the House what we would like to see come out of that convention. Unless the Minister goes immediately from the debate to the telephone, this debate may not have much influence.
We had some idea from the radio this morning of the Deputy Prime Minister's stance, and some idea of the Government's stance on Friday from Hansard when, in a written answer on radioactive substances, we were told that they wanted to work with industry. It said:
To ensure that we are able to see and avoid problems related to radioactive discharges in future, we shall be asking nuclear operators to prepare forward looking strategies for the next twenty years."—[Official Report, 17 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 326.]

Angela Eagle: Some of the increased discharges that have been experienced in this decade have been caused by decisions made in previous decades. The idea of the forward plans is that such matters should be taken into account, rather than there being a lag between a decision about how to deal with particular waste and the realisation that it requires greater dispersal a year later.

Sir Robert Smith: I think that I understand the Minister's point about the need to plan for the future. The Government recognise that it would be preferable not to discharge radioactive substances. Therefore, it is important for the Government to say why we should be doing so now, and why they want to carry on doing it at the moment.
An important part of the Minister's reply should be the setting out of the Government's attitude towards reprocessing—whether they still see the necessity for it and whether they are reviewing it, as the Labour party

seems to want them to do. The economics of the industry and the driving forces behind reprocessing when it first started have now changed. The availability of fuel has changed and the need for plutonium has changed. We have debated plutonium and the worry about creating a plutonium culture when we do not need plutonium. There is also the worry that we allow such discharges because we want to continue reprocessing. We are importing waste from other countries, but are we certain that we can return it? It would be pointless to pollute our seas and end up as a nuclear dustbin for the rest of the world. Clearly, as in the Italian case, there is a danger that such waste will not be returned.
With the process in abeyance, if there are economic uncertainties and occasional technical uncertainties, which reduce capacity, the danger is that we shall not be able to carry out the contracts in the way that was originally intended by returning the high-level waste. In addition, because we cannot dispose of the low-level and medium waste, the argument behind the original reprocessing set-up seems to be falling apart. It would be reassuring to hear that the Government intend to review that. We have reached the point where the uncertainties are becoming greater and the foundations are looking rocky. The Government should ensure that their strategy fits the needs of the industry and the country at the present time.
On the radio, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned background levels, but background levels of man-made substances are, obviously, zero—plutonium, for example, does not naturally occur, so its background level is zero. Will the Minister clarify what the Government mean by background levels and what kind of radiation emissions they are talking about?
I note that not too many hon. Members want to speak, so the Minister should have enough time to respond, which is crucial. In the debate on plutonium, we did not leave the Minister enough time to give a reply on which hon. Members could intervene. I hope that she will be able to deal with a wide range of issues, questions and facts.
I urge the Minister to say what the Government's attitude is to reprocessing and to a review of reprocessing. Why do the Government believe that it is necessary to continue discharging radioactive waste into the marine environment? I hope that we shall hear that, ultimately, they are committed to protecting the environment from man's activities, so that this generation, which benefits from cheap electricity, does not leave to future generations a problem from which they receive no benefit but with which they have to deal.

Mr. Chris Ruane: I have campaigned about pollution in the Irish sea for the past 10 years. The two main towns in my constituency—Rhyl and Prestatyn—are traditional seaside resort towns that depend on tourism for their prosperity. They expanded as tourist towns because of the clean seas and beaches, so any marine pollution threatens their viability and that of dozens of others on the Irish sea.
Radioactive pollution must be viewed in the context of the many other forms of pollution that affect the Irish sea, which is relatively enclosed. Industries that pollute the sea either deny that the problem exists in their industry or minimise the effects. Sewage sludge—human waste


mixed with heavy metals—has been dumped in Liverpool bay for 10 years at a rate of 90,000 tonnes per year. Indeed, dumping came to an end only this month—under a Labour Government, I am proud to announce. The Irish sea has for decades also been used as a huge chemical toilet by the water companies. They believed that long outfall pipes in the sea were the answer to sewage pollution, but—as has been the case in Blackpool—all that happened was that the sewage took longer to reach the beaches.
The main rivers that run into the Irish sea—especially those with industrial hinterlands, such as the Mersey and the Dee—have caused much pollution. In 1992, there were nearly 900 industrial spillages into the Irish sea from the Mersey. The dumping of munitions and chemical weapons since the end of the first world war has led to further pollution—flatfish caught in the Irish sea have 10 times the permitted level of arsenic. The rivers running into the Irish sea that have a rural hinterland have deposited hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fertilisers, leading to the worst cases of algae blooms in Europe.
Oil exploration and extraction have also contributed to the pollution of the Irish sea. Indeed, only four weeks ago, there was a major spillage of 47 tonnes from the Douglas field, for which Broken Hill Proprietary claimed responsibility. The spillage affected both my constituency and its neighbour, Clwyd, West—5 tonnes of it ended up on the shores of Rhyl, Prestatyn, Pensarn and Abergele.
The Irish sea is a busy shipping area. Many of the ships that visit the ports illegally flush out their tanks into the sea, and other ships, such as the Sea Empress, run aground—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the debate is about radioactive discharges into the marine environment from Sellafield—he must make his remarks fit in with that subject.

Mr. Ruane: I come finally to the pollutant that is being discussed—radiation, specifically radiation leaks from Sellafield. In 1991, my constituency experienced some of the worst storms of the century. Parts of it, and of the neighbouring constituency of Clwyd, West, were under five feet of water. The crashing waves disturbed the sandy sediment on the beaches. HTV commissioned research that found radiation levels way above the average.
The Irish sea has been described as one of the most radioactive seas in the world. The Government made excellent headway in the reduction of radioactive pollution by announcing last September a complete ban on the dumping of radioactive waste, which was in stark contrast to the dilute-and-disperse policy of the previous Government.
I realise that reducing to zero radioactive discharges into the marine environment will not be easy. There has been a £7 billion investment in Sellafield, the plant has £12 billion of orders and tens of thousands of jobs are at stake. However, I urge the Minister to consider seriously the reduction to zero of radioactive pollution at Sellafield. I urge her to consider radioactive pollution in the wider context of the overall pollution of the Irish sea from the many sources that I have mentioned, and to take account of the negative effects of radioactive discharge on the

economy, especially on tourism and fishing. The effects of radioactive discharges on the marine environment could be profound, and could last for hundreds of thousands of years.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on obtaining this debate, to which I want to make a brief contribution. I am concerned about the discharges from the Sellafield plant in Cumbria. The longest coastline adjacent to Sellafield—apart from that of Cumbria itself—is on the Solway firth in my constituency. For some years, there has been great concern about the increase in radionuclides in the firth and on the beaches. As my hon. Friend said, particular concern has been expressed about the levels of technetium-99 in the environment, which are largely a result of the processing that began not so long ago of the waste from the Magnox programme. Although discharges are now falling from their historically high levels, we need to ask whether current or future levels are, or will be, satisfactory—indeed, we need to ask whether there is such a thing as a satisfactory level.
Various claims have been made about the level of radioactive concentrations in seafood and various kinds of seaweed. Concentrations are high not only near the end of the Sellafield discharge pipe—where British Nuclear Fuels says one would expect them to be high—but all along the Solway coast and as far round as Cape Wrath in the north of Scotland, where pollution in seafood and seaweed is increasing.
According to Scottish Environment Protection Agency surveys, radioactivity in lobsters caught on the north Solway coast increased from 390 bq/kg in 1994 to 1,700 bq/kg two years later. In winkles from Southerness—a village in my constituency—levels increased from 200 bq/kg to 730 bq/kg over the same period. At Port William in the Machars in my constituency, the level in seaweed has increased from 350 bq/kg to 2600 bq/kg over that period. At Cape Wrath in the north of Scotland, the level in seaweed has increased from 22 bq/kg to 290 bq/kg. We have a major problem of increasing cumulative levels.
BNFL says that eating seven or eight lobsters of the sort found in my constituency gives radioactivity equivalent to eating one Brazil nut. I must admit that I have never eaten a Brazil nut, despite the world cup, but the real point is the cumulative and long-lasting effect of the build-up of such concentrations of radioactivity and the effect that that will have on future generations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth pointed out, technetium-99 has a half-life of 213,000 years, so it builds up. The result is that we can expect the increase in pollution in sea foods and seaweeds to continue until an unacceptable level is reached.
Reference has also been made to leukaemia clusters. Although the number of cases is too small to permit any definite conclusion as to whether there is a noticeable effect on the coast of Wales, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) pointed out, there is genuine concern among people in those areas that their environment and health are being affected. The Environment Agency plans to allow BNFL to increase its discharges of various radioactive gases, including iodine-129, carbon-14 and ruthenium-106.


The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to discharges of carbon-14, but the significant feature of carbon-14 is that it has a half-life of 16 million years, so although discharges might not yet have built up to a significant level, the problem is cumulative and it will prove to be long lasting. The problem will certainly be around long after most of us have left the Chamber.
We have to take into account the international perspective. Some hon. Members regard people involved in the anti-nuclear movement as a bunch of cranks, but I do not think that we can put the Irish Government, the Norwegian Government or the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations into that category. They are all responsible bodies with which we have cordial relations, and we have to take seriously their views on the need to eliminate such discharges.
Ideally, we should not discharge radionuclides into the atmosphere or the environment. However there is a danger that even the low-level discharges that BNFL, SEPA and the Environment Agency seek will not be achieved because of cost considerations. There is a danger inherent in the "best available technology not entailing excessive cost" principle that, because of the cost, we shall not even achieve the far from ideal levels that are being talked about.
Many of my constituents have a long and honourable record of opposition to nuclear pollution, going back to the campaign against nuclear dumping in Mullwharcher in the 1970s, which was led by one of my predecessors, Mr. George Thompson. They are still concerned about health and the environment, and about the potential effect on tourism, to which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) referred. They have no desire to be the victims of nuclear dumping by stealth from Sellafield.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I shall endeavour to be brief, first, so that the Minister can reply adequately to the debate and, secondly, because I do not count myself one of the House's experts on this subject.
It was interesting to note how the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) was stung by the intervention from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about whether she had ever visited Dounreay. I have visited neither Dounreay nor Sellafield, but I have visited the Magnox power station at Bradwell in Essex, which is adjacent to my constituency and in which I take a close interest.
I must admit that I have been hugely impressed by the attention paid to safety there and to ensuring that nuclear emissions are tightly controlled. The only incident that alarmed local residents occurred when one of the boilers overheated and the station had to let off a lot of steam, but no nuclear discharge was involved. The most common sort of nuclear alert is one caused by visitors wearing old-fashioned luminous watches. The staff advise visitors to remove them and to stop wearing them, because they pose a far higher risk to personal health than any nuclear power station.
I know the west coast of Scotland well. There are far worse environmental hazards there than the low levels of nuclear discharge that we are discussing today. For example, the release of mink has had a devastating effect

on local bird life, which raises questions about biodiversity. Acid rain caused by coal-fired power stations has also had a significant effect on Scotland's west coast.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not arguing that the existence of other problems means that we should not tackle this problem?

Mr. Jenkin: No, I am not saying that; it is entirely in character that the hon. Gentleman should try to imply that I am. I am saying merely that the issues should be kept in proportion. The hon. Member for Linlithgow made a good fist of explaining how the emissions are hugely reduced, which is hardly the impression given by the hon. Member for Perth. We should be interested in reducing overall pollution, not only one sort of pollution. To do so, we must make uncomfortable and difficult choices, because the problem does not lend itself to the sort of single-issue fanaticism that the nuclear industry has always attracted.
I was most interested in the assertion by the hon. Member for Perth that we could reduce nuclear waste by stopping nuclear reprocessing. That flies in the face of the advice from BNFL, which argues that, on the contrary, reprocessing reduces overall waste and especially high-level waste. The hon. Lady neatly claimed to support alternative means of disposal, but all the advice so far assessed by Governments of whatever party shows that alternative forms of storage are not as efficient a way of dealing with nuclear waste as reprocessing.
The important considerations in this debate are responsibility and openness. Our prime concern should be the environment, and not only one kind of pollution, radioactive discharges; for example, we should also be concerned about CO2 emissions. On the question of coping with radioactive materials that originate in different parts of the world, it is interesting to note how internationalist many environmentalists are when it suits them but, when BNFL provides a service to help the world to deal with the problem of nuclear waste, they suddenly complain that this country is being turned into a nuclear dustbin. That is not a consistent view.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to dismiss my views and fears; I understand that and I accept it, even though I do not agree with him. However, I should be obliged if he would tell us whether he believes that we should summarily dismiss the real concerns of the Norwegians, the Danes, the Irish, the Icelandic people and all the Scandinavian peoples, who share my concerns and make precisely the same demands as I do. The hon. Gentleman wants to dismiss my demands, but would he also dismiss theirs?

Mr. Jenkin: I certainly do not dismiss the hon. Lady's comments, nor do I dismiss the views of other Governments, however, it is important to recognise that, in countries that have proportional representation and where the Greens can hold disproportionate influence over Government policy, Governments can end up running before the vagaries of public opinion, instead of making a hard-headed assessment of what is in the interests of the


country concerned and of the world as a whole. Closing reprocessing plants will not make the problem of nuclear waste go away.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way again, because I want the Minister to give a proper reply to the debate. Halting reprocessing will not make the problem of nuclear waste disappear, but it is one way of fulfilling our international role.
Openness is key. The nuclear industry has learnt from past incidents that there is no substitute for openness and ensuring that as many people as possible understand the issues involved. There is nothing to be gained from rationing information in the hope of keeping fearful data out of the public domain. That has proved in the past to be a mistake, and the industry has clearly learnt its lesson. The Government and the nuclear industry must deal with the problem by continuing that policy of openness.
I hope that the Minister will reply to all the questions raised in the debate. I also have one or two of my own. Do the Government agree with the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) at the end of the last Parliament that nuclear reprocessing remains the best option? Has the Minister received any advice to suggest that the decision to continue reprocessing is wrong? What advice have the Government sought regarding overall stocks of plutonium? That issue was raised in an Adjournment debate earlier this year, but the Minister did not have time to reply on that occasion.
Are there physical or political constraints on the amount of plutonium that we can accept into this country? Can the Minister confirm that we will continue to re-export much of the reprocessed materials? I am interested in the Minister's views regarding the implications of radioactive levels in shellfish—which was perhaps the main issue raised in the debate. It is suggested that levels of radiation in shellfish, such as lobsters, are dangerous.
Nuclear energy is a vital part of this country's energy industry. Privatisation may have raised questions about its economic efficiency, but it remains one of the cleanest forms of electricity generation. It would be impossible for the Government to meet their targets on greenhouse gas emissions without a continued role for nuclear energy. In addition to those considerations, sites such as the plant at Sellafield are major employers and major contributors to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. BNFL is Britain's biggest yen earner.
Regrettably, the production of nuclear energy generates a limited amount of radioactive waste. It is right and proper that the Government should take all steps in their power to minimise the discharge of such matter and to ensure that as little as possible enters the ecosystem, causing risk to this and future generations. However, it is not possible to prevent those emissions completely, and it would be unrealistic to set a target of reducing future emissions to zero.
The Environment Agency monitors closely the levels of radioactive discharges, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it is somehow implicated in a pro-nuclear conspiracy.

The agency is an objective body whose job is to ensure that the general public suffer no appreciable risk. Less than 0.1 per cent. of the total radiation to which the general public in the United Kingdom are exposed comes from waste matter discharged by the nuclear industry.
We therefore give our broad support to the Government's negotiating position at the Ospar meeting. We believe that the Deputy Prime Minister has come some way since his stunts in a wetsuit outside No. 10. However, I must ask how such issues would be dealt with by a Scottish Parliament that was perhaps dominated by alarmists and those seeking to hijack these extremely sensitive issues for their own party political advantage. What would happen if the Scottish Parliament diametrically opposed the Government's negotiating position in Ospar? The Government failed to answer that question during debates on the devolution legislation, and I doubt that they will have an answer today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), who is well known for taking a close interest in such issues, on securing this timely Adjournment debate—although we might have been more enlightened about the subject if the debate had occurred after Ospar's conclusion next week. No doubt we shall return to the issue later.
I was astonished to hear the hon. Lady confirm that Scottish National party policy dictates that nuclear waste should be stored where it is generated. That would mean that the 170 tonnes of nuclear waste generated by Scottish power stations, Chapelcross and Torness, and transported to Sellafield every year would have to be stored in Scotland. I am interested to know where the SNP proposes to store that waste material. I think that Dounreay has the capacity to store about 10 tonnes of waste, so where would the SNP store the large amount of waste that travels from Scotland to England every year if it had the chance to put its policy into effect?
As many contributors to the debate have pointed out, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment are today in Sintra, Portugal representing the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Oslo and Paris convention, which is concerned with the protection of the Atlantic ocean. An important feature of that meeting will be considering ways of reducing radioactive discharges to the marine environment. The Government are fully committed to that objective, and I assure the House that they are working positively to secure an agreement to which all contracting parties to the convention—including the Scandinavian countries—can subscribe and which will ensure improvements in the protection of the marine environment.
The Government share the concerns of those who call for improvements in the protection of our seas. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister appeared in his frogsuit—as various hon. Members have described it—a year ago, and there have been significant reductions in


discharge levels since then. One might conclude that there was a causal effect—perhaps that should be investigated by scientists.

Mr. Jenkin: My faith in the hon. Lady's scientific analysis has been suddenly reduced.

Angela Eagle: The relationship between cause and effect is sometimes not easy to discern. I suspect that most would agree that the reasons for my right hon. Friend's appearance in his frogsuit have diminished—although we are not complacent about the dangers that continuing discharges of radionuclides present to the environment.
The Government share the concerns of those who call for improvements in the protection of our seas. All discharges of radioactive materials, whether to the marine environment or to the atmosphere—those are often the disposal alternatives—are subject to strict regulation in accordance with national and international standards. Those standards ensure that the discharges do not put public health at risk.
At the September 1997 meeting of Ospar, we committed ourselves to making progress on reducing radioactive discharges into the sea. Our aim at the current meeting is to agree a strategy for radioactive substances that is demanding but achievable and will guide the work of the Ospar convention over the next 20 years or more. The exact wording of the strategy will be agreed at the meeting in Portugal by the end of this week. As hon. Members have pointed out, several alternative proposals have been proposed, including one that calls for concentrations in the marine environment that are close to zero for man-made radioactive substances.
In deciding our response, we shall need to have regard to what is deliverable, and we shall also need to take into account the legacy of past actions. We cannot wish away the stockpiles of nuclear materials that have been created by past nuclear activity. We must find a way of either reprocessing or storing those materials. We cannot secure international agreements that do not take account of that legacy with which we clearly must deal.
To ensure that we are able to foresee and avoid problems related to radioactive discharges in future, we shall ask nuclear operators to prepare forward-looking strategies for the next 20 years. I tried to make that point when I intervened on the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith).
Technetium-99 became an issue because of decisions taken in the 1980s to deal with radioactive storage materials from Magnox power stations. Those decisions concentrated on the higher toxic radionuclides rather than technetium-99, which, although it is a cause for concern, is not one of the most toxic radionuclides that could find its way into the sea. As a result of decisions taken in the 1980s, it has become obvious that discharges of technetium-99 have increased, and the Environment Agency is examining the matter. That is why I mentioned, during the speech by the hon. Member for Perth, that the Environment Agency has warned BNFL that it must look at abatement technology for removing technetium-99 so that it does not have to be discharged.
However, there is a time lag between deciding how to deal with a particular form of waste and realising that there may be some radionuclides that were not at the top of one's priority list when the original waste reprocessing was decided.

Sir Robert Smith: Is there a fairly close link between those decisions? If waste is reprocessed, we have the problem of marine discharge; if it is not reprocessed, storage and other solutions do not result in marine discharge.

Angela Eagle: My understanding is that some nuclear waste has to be reprocessed, particularly from the Magnox power stations. If it is not, existing plant would have to be closed down and electricity would not be generated. I note with interest that 50 per cent. of Scotland's power needs are provided by nuclear power, as opposed to 25 per cent. of England's needs. If one decides to close reactors down, where else would the power come from, and what would be the effects of generating it in other ways? This is an holistic debate; the problem cannot be attacked from one side without realising that there are implications in other areas.
As I was saying, we must deal with the legacy as well as future planning in deciding how to generate the power that we all take for granted every day. To ensure that we can foresee and avoid problems such as the technetium-99 effect, we shall ask nuclear operators to prepare forward-looking strategies for the next 20 years.
Hon. Members have expressed concern about a number of incidents at both Sellafield and Dounreay, and the fact that reprocessing is currently not being carried out at either. The Government are determined that the regulators should bear down heavily on any laxness on the part of nuclear operators. We shall ensure that the nuclear industry is effectively and vigorously regulated.
The Government are committed to openness. I agree with the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) about the need to increase transparency in the way in which the nuclear industry deals with the public debate. However, a more open stance also means more awareness of incidents that, in the past, may have been hushed up. All hon. Members should deal with the matter responsibly, so that we can have a meaningful debate that is not alarmist and based on scaremongering, but based on scientific facts.
Following incidents in recent months, the Government's policy of openness has been seen in operation. Openness is essential if the public are to have confidence that the nuclear industry is well managed and safe. Following a breakdown in the electrical supply at Dounreay, the Health and Safety Executive required the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to stop processing and reprocessing activities in the fuel cycle area. Following leakage from pipework within a contained cell at Sellafield, the thermal oxide reprocessing plant was closed down. In neither incident was there an adverse radiological impact to the work force or the general public. I want to reassure the House that the Health and Safety Executive will not permit either plant to reopen until it is satisfied that they can be restarted safely.
The Government have available to them a number of expert and independent bodies that conduct research and make recommendations about the various aspects of radioactivity and radiation exposure. We shall ensure that the Government, the regulators, the nuclear industry and the public at large continue to have access to the best scientific advice, so that we can all have confidence that the industry operated within safe limits.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there any news about the likely immediate future of THORP?

Angela Eagle: The HSE and BNFL are investigating the incident. They seek various reassurances about what happened, and will not authorise a re-start until they are satisfied that it is safe to do so. That involves investigating how the escape happened in a contained area.
The Government announced in June this year that there would be no new commercial reprocessing at Dounreay. The decision was taken on a number of grounds, including UKAEA's view that reprocessing there was no longer commercially viable. None of the factors that applied at Dounreay apply at Sellafield. For technical reasons, spent Magnox fuel must be reprocessed. For other spent nuclear fuels, the Government accept that it is for the fuel's owner to determine the best management option, but within a very strict regulatory regime. The reprocessing of foreign spent fuel does not increase the amount of radioactive waste to be disposed of in this country.
In answer to questions asked during the debate, I can confirm that each reprocessing contract provides for the resulting wastes to be returned to the country of origin. Those countries have all signed the non-proliferation treaty, so the mythical market in plutonium does not exist. There are very strict limits.
I am aware of the concerns about the discharge of technetium-99 from Sellafield into the Irish sea, and that deposits of technetium-99 have been found on the Irish side of the sea and as far away as Scandinavia. I hope that what I said about the Environment Agency's view, and the fact that BNFL will have to come up with abatement technology, will deal with that problem.
Much of the radioactive contamination of the seas around our coastline occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. It is important to bear in mind that overall discharges of radioactivity are significantly lower today than they were then. Taking all radioactive discharges from Sellafield—both to the atmosphere and to the sea—current discharges are just 1 per cent. of the peak in the 1970s. We shall ensure that that trend continues, but we must remember that previous discharges can still be found when tests are carried out.
The House will know that British Nuclear Fuels has applied to the Environment Agency for variations to some of the Sellafield discharge limits. The agency carried out a consultation exercise earlier in the year and is now considering its determination of the applications in the light of consultees' views.
The Radioactive Substances Act 1963 gives the Secretary of State for the Environment

the power to decide radioactive discharge applications. A number of requests have been made to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to exercise that power in respect of the present Sellafield applications. I understand from the Environment Agency that it expects to be in a position to determine the applications by the end of September. I assure the House that the call-in requests are under consideration and that a decision will be reached about whether the applications should be called in before the agency issues any determination.
The House will appreciate that, because of the statutory function that my right hon. Friend has to exercise in this case, I cannot comment about the merits of the applications or say at this stage what decision will be reached on the call-in requests. I can assure the House that all the representations made to the Government on this issue, including those by hon. Members, will be carefully considered in reaching a decision. I can also confirm that the Government have made it clear to the Environment Agency that we expect to see progressive reductions in discharges and discharge limits at the Sellafield, site where practicable.
Let me remind the House of some of the positive steps that we have taken with regard to Dounreay. The Dounreay waste shaft was licensed before I was born, which illustrates my point about legacy. Since the explosion there in 1977, the shaft has been monitored. However, a range of options had been prepared to identify a lasting solution to that difficult problem. In March of this year, the Government announced that we accepted the site operators' recommendation that the waste in the Dounreay shaft and the related wet silo should be retrieved for treatment and storage. Current indicative costs suggest that expenditure may be between £215 million and £355 million, spread over 25 years.
On reprocessing activities at Dounreay, we announced last month that no further commercial reprocessing contracts would be entered into, which will allow Dounreay to concentrate on reprocessing its own fuel, the Georgian material and existing commercial contracts. That limited programme of reprocessing is likely to be completed around 2006.
We also took positive action in response to the detection, off shore from Dounreay, of fragments of irradiated fuel, by imposing a precautionary ban on the taking of sea fish from the waters within a two-mile radius, and work continues to identify the source of that problem.
That standpoint of openness with vigorous regulation is evidenced by our welcome for the prompt and wide-ranging review of safety management being conducted at Dounreay by the HSE and by SEPA. We expect the UKAEA to respond promptly to any recommendations made following the review. We also welcome the robust role generally adopted by the independent regulators. I repeat that we are not complacent on these issues, even though many of the problems we face are legacies.
The Government are committed to protecting the marine environment, and we are working with our partners in Ospar to secure progress on that. We have shown our willingness to act to protect our seas. Soon after we were elected, we announced in Ospar that we would give up the opt-out on dumping radioactive waste at sea, which effectively closed the door on any resumption of that practice.
Recent actions by the regulators at Sellafield and at Dounreay show that the arrangements are open, and that tough action is taken when required. The decision to shut down operations in the fuel cycle area at Dounreay was taken on a number of grounds, but, as we made clear in announcing that decision, environmental considerations were taken into account. We shall continue to ensure that the industry is well regulated.

Clean-coal Technology

Mr. Denis Murphy: I thank the House for allowing me to secure the debate. I shall develop an argument for Government support for clean-coal technology in the context of an integrated regional energy programme, and will use practical examples of best practice to show that we can develop complementary energy systems—some based on renewables and all with the ability to be used nationally and traded internationally. That would allow Britain to develop a diverse, sustainable and secure source of energy.
My constituency is in the north-east of England, which has the potential to develop sources of renewable energy. A seven-turbine wind farm was built at the edge of my constituency six years ago, at the entrance to Blyth harbour. It generates enough electricity to power 1,500 homes. Plans are in place for two large wind turbines to be placed offshore and, if successful, they could be the blueprint for many more similar installations around Britain's coastline. There are more wind turbine companies in the north-east than in any other part of Britain, and a wind turbine can be manufactured small enough and economically enough to allow hill farmers and dairy farmers to produce electricity economically.
Northumbria university is a world leader in photovoltaics, which is the conversion of sunlight into electricity. The technology is capable not only of helping to reduce greenhouse gases, but could help business development and, therefore, wealth creation. The Ove Arup Newcastle office is the worldwide centre for all its photovoltaic work, and Sundwell Solar supplies a third of the United Kingdom's solar thermal units.
The region is home to major consultancies such as Meiz and Mclellan, and we have architects and system designers, all of whom are poised to pool their related expertise for the design, supply and installation of photovoltaic systems for the global market. There are more than 200 rivers and streams in the area, yet we have only one hydro-electric scheme, at Kielder. We have room for many more.
The region is energy-rich, and our greatest energy asset is coal. The great northern coalfield stretches from north Yorkshire almost to the Scottish border, and coal has been mined there for more than 600 years. Our only remaining deep coal mine is Ellington colliery, which employs 500 people, and works the rich seams seven miles out under the North sea.
We have two coal-fired power stations in the constituency. One is owned by Alcan and supplies the aluminium smelter. My hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry will be aware that the power station and the smelter have just undergone a £100 million refurbishment, because he visited the plant recently. His encouragement and support played a major role in securing that investment, and I am grateful to him. Part of that investment went into providing new turbines, which will increase the efficiency of the station by 5 per cent. and reduce emissions by 14 per cent. The added bonus was that the turbines were made at Siemens Power Generation on Tyneside—a plant with a worldwide reputation for engineering excellence.
The Alcan power station is only 25 years old. It complies with all its emission requirements, and could be a site for the fitting of clean-coal units. The other


coal-fired station—Blyth A and B—is an entirely different story. It is owned by National Power and is one of the oldest coal-fired stations in Britain. It does not appear to be used a great deal and, although no announcement has been made by National Power, informed opinion is that it has about two years to run. It would be a perfect site for a new energy centre, combining a clean-coal power station, a recycling plant and the generation of electricity with a fuel mix of coal and pellets from waste manufactured on-site.
Blyth power station is a regional asset. It stands in one of the best transport positions in Britain and has a deep-water berth in the port of Blyth with direct access to the North sea. The rail link into the station is close to the east coast main line and there is a dual carriageway linking through the A19 to the Tyneside conurbation. Coal stocking and ash disposal are on site, so planning permission would be much easier to obtain without a lengthy and expensive public inquiry. The switchgear and grid infrastructure are already in place.
There are two attractions of substituting some fuel by introducing waste to the clean-coal technology project: there would be a reduction in fuel costs, and there could be a beneficial impact on the environment. Many of our large cities are experiencing major problems disposing of household waste. Landfill sites are at a premium, which enables owners to make ever increasing charges in line with what the market will bear and to compensate themselves for the long-term liability that the sites carry. The possibility of an increase in landfill tax will put pressure on waste producers to find other methods of disposal.
About 300,000 tonnes of waste of all types is landfilled in Northumberland alone, but there is evidence that landfilling is no longer the best option. The recent European meeting on the clean-coal technology programme concluded:
Far too many organic wastes or residues are landfilled or composted.
They emit carbon dioxide, methane dioxins and other harmful products to the atmosphere and to groundwater. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and recent studies have shown that composting of waste may form high levels of dioxins that may be avoided or destroyed in a combustion process.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we simply burn all our household waste; recycling plant would enable much of it to be recycled. As a nation, we do not recover valuable products such as metal, plastics and paper; generally speaking, they are simply buried.
A commercial recycling plant would encourage local authorities to inform householders of the benefits of sorting and separating household rubbish at source, in the home. The proposed energy centre at Blyth is adjacent to a large industrial site, which makes it ideal for the addition of an element of combined heat and power. That would dramatically increase the thermal efficiency of the plant through the subsequent reduction in emissions.
Refitting an existing power station with clean-coal technology is not only cost-effective; it helps in the longer term to achieve our commitment substantially to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions. I was pleased that that commitment was spelled out in the recent White Paper, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the time scale for compliance.
We need to protect the environment, but we also need to protect and enhance our quality of life and employment opportunities. There is little point in the young mother taking her children to school commenting on the freshness of the cold morning air if her husband is unemployed and they are struggling to feed and clothe their children. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to try to achieve a balance between our physical and our social environment—and achieving such a balance will be much easier if clean-coal technology is adopted.
I am confident that the new energy centre will receive funds through the European joule and thermie programmes, which allow funding of demonstration projects as well as research and development. The new energy centre company could be a partnership, bringing together local authorities, equipment manufacturers, regional electricity companies and generators such as National Power. That partnership might produce sufficient capital to ensure the survival of the project; but, given that it may not, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider providing Government funds to enhance the various European programmes and to make clean-coal burning not just a theory but a reality?
I have used Blyth power station as an example, but many other coal-fired stations could benefit from clean-coal technology. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use his good offices to urge generators to invest in such technology now, where that is appropriate, to ensure security of electricity supply and to guarantee the long-term survival of what is left of Britain's mining industry.

Mr. John Cummings: Would it not be rather ironic if the investment that we are asking from our British Government were spent on the burning of clean coal in Germany? A ridiculous arrangement currently exists because of the high subsidies given to the German mining industry. Will not the Government investment for which we are asking be at risk if the question of subsidies is not resolved once and for all?

Mr. Murphy: I agree wholeheartedly.
Coal still has a major role to play as an industry producing fuel for the future, and it could play a large part in building a new clean-energy centre in my constituency. As well as being rich in energy, the north-east is rich in ideas, innovation and engineering. Not only could we use the new technologies locally; we could design and manufacture equipment for global markets.
Power stations throughout the world use equipment designed and manufactured on Tyneside. The first house to be lit by electricity is in Northumberland—Cragside, near Rothbury. We have exported our ideas and products to every corner of the land. Recently, I had the good fortune to visit the Cabinet war rooms. In the Cabinet room itself, deep below Whitehall, I saw two massive girders running the length of the room and supporting the whole structure. Those girders have carried that colossal weight for half a century. I was pleased, but not surprised, to see stamped on them the words "Made in Gateshead". They are as good today as they were 50 years ago.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his efforts to give coal a fairer deal, and for throwing the industry lifeline. I remind the House that coal from


Northumberland fuelled the industrial revolution and has powered this century. I believe that, as a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that there is a place for it in the millennium, and clean-coal technology will guarantee that place.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Usually, in Adjournment debates, hon. Members draw the House's attention to a complaint or a difficulty in their constituencies. Rarely have I heard a speech so full of practical vision and new possibilities as the thought-provoking contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy). He said that the north-east was rich in ideas, innovation and engineering, and I think that his speech more than demonstrated that.
I am determined that the need to generate energy should not be seen to be at odds with consideration for the environment and the future. My hon. Friend presented us with his vision of a new energy centre, blending clean-coal technology with the recycling of waste; he also conveyed a sense of balance that I found very helpful. I agree with him about the need to think things out at a local level and to see that process as a microcosm that shows what can be done with the aid of practical vision, nationally and internationally.
I believe that clean-coal technologies are the key to the coal industry's future, not only in Britain but internationally. World coal use is likely to increase from 3.5 billion tonnes to more than 5.3 billion tonnes by 2010, and increases substantially beyond that are forecast. If that amount is to be burned, it is vital for clean-coal technologies to be developed. We have some experience here in Britain.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government support the development of clean-coal technology and welcome his endorsement of a sustained, diverse, secure and integrated approach to energy generation. I have visited Alcan power station and, as an Opposition spokesman, I visited Northumbria university and saw its photovoltaics. Great work is going on there. There is also an earth balance project, which brings together a range of new technologies and spells out the fact that, by integrating such technologies, we can find a practical way forward that provides much-needed energy and warmth for local communities.
We must concentrate on the tough environmental challenges we face. My hon. Friend referred to the setting of targets that might prematurely squeeze out energy generation and jobs. At the Kyoto conference, the European Union agreed to reduce its emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide—by 8 per cent., relative to the 1990 level, during the period 2008–12.
On 17 June, at the meeting of the Environment Council in Europe, member states agreed on the way in which the target should be apportioned. Our target is a 12.5 per cent. reduction. That means that the time for talking is over. We must establish programmes to meet the targets—and that brings us back to the practical vision presented by my hon. Friend.
Clean-coal technologies have an important part to play in the delivery of the agenda. Coal burning leads to emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide—usually

referred to as sox and nox. We must reduce the level of pollution. We are keen to support cleaner coal technologies. I emphasise the word "cleaner": no energy generation source is entirely pure and clean, and that includes renewable energy and even wind farms. I am not suggesting that schemes in Blyth and elsewhere are challenged by environmental insensitivities, or for aesthetic reasons; I am saying that we can aim for cleaner forms of generation and look to renewable sources such as combined heat and power to reduce the amount of waste.
Sulphur dioxide emissions from the major electricity generators in England and Wales are already programmed to fall to 365 kilotonnes in 2005. That target—with significant interim reductions—must be achieved. We believe that coal-fired generators must now take reasonable steps to run their plant more cleanly. Cleaning up at the back end, as it were, with fluidised gas desulphurisation is one option. At present, two plants in Britain—National Power's Drax plant, and PowerGen's Ratcliffe plant in the midlands—are the only ones that do that. We must also consider the front end, in the hope that coal can be burned not only in a cleaner way—as my hon. Friend suggested—but in a more energy-efficient way. We need to tackle not just the nox and the sox, but carbon dioxide emissions. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that.
We are faced with real challenges. The Environment Agency is now discussing with generators proposals to revise emission limits. We expect those discussions to encompass the implications of, for example, the likely lifetime and usage of coal-fired power stations and policy on flue gas desulphurisation systems. In our recent policy statement on power generation sources—which we put out for consultation—we recommended that all power generators should consider fitting FGD immediately as a means of meeting targets on sulphur dioxide emissions. We must go further and develop the work that we have done on clean-coal technology.
Blyth power station is owned by National Power. I am not sure from my hon. Friend's comments whether National Power has been presented with this vision of Blyth as an energy centre. I am more than happy to discuss this matter further with my hon. Friend, and to approach National Power directly to see whether such a vision can be implemented.
There are European directives and legislation on waste. I am not clear about combining waste pellets with the new developments in clean-coal technologies. I am more than happy to explore all the possibilities with my hon. Friend, rather than let them remain fallow.
My hon. Friend mentioned the wind project at Blyth harbour. It is one of the wind farms of the future, because wind generation will move from the highlands to the coast and offshore. We are currently preparing for that in our proposals for renewable energy support through the non-fossil fuel obligation projects.
It is evident that clean-coal plants will have to have considerably lower emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide than existing coal-fired plants. They should not generate solid or liquid waste that results in the environmental problems associated with power stations. Constraints will be tighter in the future, and we must find ways of coping with them.
I emphasise that my Department already has a clean-coal research and development programme. It has supported a substantial portfolio of clean-coal


technologies in the past few years. We recently conducted a thorough review to see what we can be done to bring together the research carried out under the Department's energy directorate and under the science budgets. The Government support £3.7 million-worth of research on clean-coal technologies. The development of advanced power generation technologies offers the promise of developing technologies with efficiencies of more than 50 per cent.
At present, an ordinary, traditional, coal-burning power station burns at about 38 per cent. thermal efficiency. The new gas power stations—the combined cycle gas turbines—burn at about 58 per cent. at best. If we move to combined heat and power, the figure could be as high as 90 per cent. We must also improve the thermal efficiency of traditional coal-burning power stations. Clean-coal technologies are not just about removing the nox and the sox; they are also about increasing thermal efficiency. Some of the technologies can achieve efficiencies of more than 50 per cent. That will be a bonus for those power stations.
People are wrong to write off clean-coal technology and to say that it is not practical because the rules will change. It is wrong to say that it may remove sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide but will not help with carbon dioxide. It can help to tackle the carbon dioxide targets.
Technologies are beginning to be available: they are under development and will soon be brought on stream. A few companies in Britain are planning to build new clean-coal power generation plant. Global Energy has recently applied for a section 36 approval to build a 400 MW plant in Scotland. Celtic Energy is examining the feasibility of building a 250 MW plant in Wales. PowerGen and National Power have invested in clean-coal plant overseas. They see a huge market for clean-coal technology. If that is the case, there must be potential in Britain.
Funding is available through the European Union thermie and joule programmes. Under our presidency of the EU, I negotiated the fifth framework science programme, and we are about to launch the next tranche of proposals. Budgets must be settled in detail, so it may be implemented in 18 months' time. Companies should put in their bids and see whether their vision can be implemented using that grant. There is potential under that programme.
We shall publish an energy paper in the autumn setting out our new policy on clean-coal technology. We have to tie in the details with the comprehensive spending review and we must think through the implications for each local programme. We intend to include in our energy paper the, recommendations of the science panels that highlighted clean-coal technologies as a way forward.
The impact of clean-coal technologies will not be immediate, because they take time to develop. There are about six options. It will not be easy to find the best, most appropriate option that will meet the targets for the future. The options include supercritical or advanced pulverised fuel, atmospheric fluidised bed combustion, pressurised fluidised bed combustion, integrated gasification combined cycle and air gasification-gas turbine.
The second generation of clean-coal technologies are also being developed. I emphasise that there are a number of technologies, and they meet different needs. They

include the new British Coal air blown gasification cycle and various others. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) is present. It grieves me that we developed clean-coal technology—it was developed at Grimethorpe in Yorkshire—but let the patent pass to ABB, and now a Swedish-Swiss company markets it throughout the world. We should be back at the forefront of clean-coal science and technological development. We must show the international use of those technologies, because I am convinced that there is an international market, which will ensure that coal has a solid future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) mentioned the challenge that we face in Europe. Two UK companies have lodged objections with the European Commission to the coal subsidies in Germany and Spain. We are supporting them to ensure that our industry is not damaged by unfair subsidies elsewhere. It is not comfortable to press the case, but we shall tackle unfair competition that damages our industry. Celtic Energy has already obtained a settlement, but we must keep pressing to ensure that our companies are not damaged. The rules should not be applied disproportionately and unfairly at the expense of our industry. Our actions are in marked contrast to those of the previous Government. If we use the language of a level playing field, we should fight to ensure that we get one.
Our review of renewable energy policy has considered how we can meet 10 per cent. of demand from renewable sources. Our target is for 10 per cent. of energy generation to come from renewables by 2010. That leaves 90 per cent. to be generated from coal, gas and nuclear power, so it is only a modest proportion. We are reviewing the panoply of renewable energy, including biomass from crops, which can be turned into pellets, and wind, offshore and onshore, which has developed quite quickly. We are considering the capacity of hydropower to see whether there is small-scale potential. We are also looking at methane gas from landfill waste as a means of generating energy.
I recently visited a school to launch the first solar panel in a school under the SCOLAR programme. We want youngsters in 100 schools to experience photovoltaic technology and to see how energy can be generated from light and can be developed to become economic so that it can be used in the new century. We are investing resources in that area, and are pushing the agenda forward.
The Government are giving such priority to renewable and new sources of energy, including clean-coal technology, that we are moving to the forefront of the debate in Britain and in Europe. Selling that technology internationally creates jobs and ensures that other parts of the world get cleaner sources of energy. It is a win, win situation. Developing the technologies generates new work and jobs, enhances the environment and tackles degradation and environmental challenges. I hope that that vision matches our intensely local vision. Perhaps that beacon can be a means of showing the way to tackling energy generation and the environment in an integrated and balanced way. In future, we should not set energy generation against the environment but adopt practical and positive ways that will enable us to respect the environment, tackle the pollution that we have inherited and ensure that there is enough heat and light to serve our needs.

Left-handed Children

1 pm

Mr. Peter Luff: This is an occasion to stand up for lefties' rights, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the topic. I declare an interest in that I am a lefty, although not of the political kind, and an honorary member of the Left-Handers Club of Great Britain.
This is a campaign which I hoped never to have to fight, but, like the great civil rights campaigners of the past, I have learnt the hard way how discrimination works. An arrogant or unlistening majority—in this case right-handers, rather than men or whites—refuses to understand the problem or even to accept that it exists. Only when the oppressed minority—in this case, left-handers—makes its presence felt do things happen. Today, I hope that the left-handers of the nation are making their presence felt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, drew my attention to the long campaign of The Economist on the issue. It began in about 1962 and was renewed in December 1986, when it invited its readers to join the magazine
in a stroll down Sinister Street.
It said:
No, this is not an invitation to wallow in dirt, darkness, death and devilry. It is a summons to final victory over handism. How about making 1987 the Year of the LEFT hand? It is time to remove the vile marks with which that hand has been branded, and to restore to mankind a huge potential that has long been cast aside.
Come 1987, a quarter of a century will have passed since The Economist, setting out the case for a Universal Declaration of Human Lefts, displayed the slogan 'Loofers, arise!' on its cover. 'Loofers' referred to the habit dictionaries have of sneering at Left's derivation from such words as the very Low Dutch loof, meaning weak or worthless.
That bears an uncanny resemblance to my name.
I fear that such words are commonplace, and some are a great deal worse. Again according to The Economist, researchers preparing a survey of English dialects found 88 different words for left-handed in local use in the 1950s. Such words include buck-fisted, cack-handed, caggy, clicky, corrie-pawed, cow-pawed, cuddy-wifter, dolly-pawed, gar-pawed, gibble-fisted, golly-handed, keck-fisted, keggy-handed, left-plug, left-kelly, scoochy, scrammy-handed, skiffle-handed, south-pawed, spuddy-handed and plain squiffy.
Most of these terms are uncomplimentary, none more so than cack-handed and its variants, but—in the interests of my language remaining parliamentary—I shall not pursue that.
We may be a minority, but we seem to be growing. At the beginning of the century, the doctrinaire assertion that only 2 per cent. of mankind are naturally sinistral was orthodox enough to be chosen for citation in the "Shorter Oxford Dictionary". A 1954 estimate put the proportion in America at between 5 and 8 per cent. A 1976 study of 11-year-olds in British schools showed that left-handed children, who, 12 years earlier, had been rated at 6 per cent., already represented 10.4 per cent. Some people think that the figure now may be as high as 15 per cent. However, even one in 10 is high enough to make us take the issue seriously.
I shall again put the matter in an historical context. According to The Economist:
Our ape cousins do not discriminate. Nor did mankind during most of its existence. There is ample evidence, from flint-working and cave paintings, that our Stone Age ancestors were even-handed. Dextral domination began only a few thousand years ago. Moreover, there are some indications that the whole thing could have swung the other way.
To justify that claim, the magazine reminds us how many languages read from right to left. It even claims that left-handedness was the dominant condition south of the equator, and that it was related to sun worship and domination by various civilisations. However, that is a whole new and fascinating subject, which time does not allow me to explore.
The explanation of left-handedness is simple. I understand that it is to do with the dominance of one of the hemispheres of the brain. The left hemisphere controls the body's right side, and the right hemisphere controls the left side. That means that only left-handed people are truly in their right minds. Even so, we are discriminated against, not only by the failure of successive Governments to address our problems but by language. Hon. Members should reflect on words such as gauche and sinister, and their roots. The word "right" is always associated with good.
The Economist offered several reworkings of familiar phrases to make its point. They are:
Might is left; his heart is in the left place; wait for Mr. Left to come along; my country, left or wrong; God's in his heaven—all's left with the world; the divine left of kings; it will all come left in the end"—
and on a more European note, "Dieu et mon gauche".
I regret that even the Bible is not exempt, with the Psalmists particularly culpable. There are more than 100 handist phrases, such as:
At Thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.
I need hardly tell the House on which side the goats were placed at the final judgment before they were cursed and sent into everlasting fire.
It is not all bad. As The Economist reminded us in 1986, left-handers have the upper hand in some areas. It stated:
Six years ago French researchers, who had noted the capture by left-handed fencers of the first eight places in the Olympic men's foil, demonstrated that in such combat sinistrals reactions are fractionally faster. It seems that a fighting man's left arm and hand have a split-second advantage because of their direct link with the brain's right hemisphere which handles spatial skills.
This could also have a bearing on the prominence in top-level tennis, baseball and cricket of the relatively small numbers who play left-handed. Nowadays, nobody is surprised when three of the four semi-finalists at Wimbledon are loofers. In his time, 'Babe' Ruth held no fewer than 54 major league records. In 1975 that scoochy all-rounder Gary Sobers became Sir Garfield after setting Test cricket records for wickets and catches as well as for centuries and runs scored in one innings.
Many people believe that left-handers are above averagely intelligent and creative. Perhaps they have a point. Certainly, famous left-handers are thick on the ground. They include Charlie Chaplin, Denis Compton, W. C. Fields, Judy Garland, Jimi Hendrix, Holbein, Danny Kaye, Rod Laver, Paul McCartney, Compton Mackenzie, Marcel Marceau, Jessie Matthews, Martina Navratilova, Cole Porter, Telly Savalas, Ronald Searle, Mark Spitz, Charlemagne—I do not know how we


know that, but apparently we do—Jimmy Connors, Greta Garbo, George VI, Leonardo da Vinci—another historical mystery, but apparently he was left-handed—John McEnroe, Shirley MacLaine, Harpo Marx, Marilyn Monroe, Pablo Picasso, Joan of Arc, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar himself, David Bowie, Noel Gallagher, George Michael, and even, I am told, Melinda Messenger.

Mr. Greg Pope: And me.

Mr. Luff: I am delighted to hear that. There are many other left-handed hon. Members. We are a small minority and, I understand, disproportionately represented in the debate.
There are more. Harry Truman, George Bush, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan are or were left-handed. Indeed, at a presidential election in the United States, all three candidates, including Ross Perot, were left-handed. I should also mention that my colleague on the Select Committee on Agriculture, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is one of the distinguished parliamentary band of lefties—but then we all knew that already.
We are part of a distinguished club, but things have been bad for us, although some have got better. Technical advances have continued to level matters. For instance, the word processor has reinforced the typewriter's liberating power in freeing us from the very real difficulties of left-handed writing. Shops such as Anything Left-Handed, in Worcester and in Brewer street, London, sell all manner of gadgets to make our lives easier. They include pencil sharpeners, scissors, can openers and clocks that go backwards.
It was my then constituent, the proprietor of Anything Left-Handed in Worcester, Mark Stewart, who first drew my attention to the scale of the problem that faces left-handed children in our schools and to the fact that, given the will, something could easily be done about it. I know that Mr. Stewart's new representative in the House, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), shares that view.
I have worked with Mr. Stewart and his colleague in London, Lauren Milsom, very closely. We had a hard-won meeting with the Teacher Training Agency. It was hard won because the first stage was to work out where on earth responsibility lay. That happened in the previous Parliament, and letters were batted between Department and agency in a Kafkaesque way. However, we got there in the end, and the then Government decided that responsibility lay with the agency.
At the meeting, we were advised to regard the subject as one for the special educational needs curriculum. I took that advice, but I am no longer convinced that I was right—I have automatically slipped into handist language; I am no longer convinced that I was correct. Left-handedness is not a disability, although, if children are not given appropriate guidance at the earliest possible age, development can be impaired, confidence lost and opportunities permanently damaged.
I think that left-handedness is an issue of equal opportunity. The discrimination at one level may be less than it was, but only this morning I heard on BBC Hereford and Worcester of a seven-year-old boy whose

school had tried to force him to write with his right hand. I do not think that it used the more aggressive methods of our Victorian forebears—tying a hand behind the back or on to a chair—but it subtly encouraged him to use his right hand. He could not do it. It was only when he had a new teacher, who understood the problems of left-handedness and helped him to cope with them, that his academic work progressed as it should have done. He was absolutely delighted with what happened after the new teacher took control of his destiny.
The problem is that children who are encouraged to believe that there is something wrong with writing left-handed ask, "Why is what is right for me wrong?" They cannot understand it. In class, that manifests itself in all sorts of ways. Children who have difficulty with their writing, their colouring or their cutting out, because they have been encouraged to regard themselves as right-handed, will try to avoid the activities that cause them difficulty, leading directly to slow development and under-achievement.
Teachers need to be trained to recognise the symptoms of left-handedness, respond to them positively and help those children to use their left hands. Left-handed children who try to use their right hand will often cope, but that is all they will do. They will not excel as they might have done, and their development is delayed. Only if teachers are encouraged to recognise left-handedness early will that be prevented.
Even at sport, where left-handedness can be a distinct advantage, schools can penalise us lefties. Failure to recognise left-handedness with a bat, ball or racquet, can lead children to be encouraged to play against their natural instincts with their right hand. I am left wondering how many Wimbledon champions and fine test cricketers we have lost in the process.
Left-handed pupils need to use different equipment in the classroom, yet in some classrooms in some schools, even the simplest bit of kit, left-handed scissors, are not available. One school recently wrote to Mr. Stewart saying that to provide them would be difficult, because it would confuse the right-handed pupils to have different types of scissors. What about the left-handed pupils who are forced to use equipment that does not suit their natural way of doing things?
Left-handed people often need the mouse for their computer to be on the left hand, not the right hand, side of their screen. It is important that schools lay out information technology rooms so that there is space for the mouse on the left if that is what the child wants. The child may also need to have space for his notes on the left of the computer. As it happens, I have my mouse on the right and my notes on the left, so I take space on both sides. We are all slightly different, and teachers need to be sensitive to that information technology requirement. If schools make that possible, we shall be able to cope as well as our right-handed friends, rather than their having an unfair advantage.
Keeping friends can be a problem. If a left-handed child is seated on the right of a right-handed child, there are frequent clashes of elbows. That can quickly destroy relationships between children and even lead to fights in the classroom. We must ensure that a left-handed child sits on the other side of a shared desk to avoid any clashing of elbows.
Above all, left-handed people need guidance in writing. Smudging and being unable to read what one has written is the chief difficulty that I have encountered, as a result of which I write with an exceptionally uncomfortable and awkward style, right over the top—called by experts the hook style of writing. I am told that I have a classic hook style, which avoids smudging and means that I can read what I have written. However, I find handwriting difficult—it is awkward and uncomfortable, and I avoid it whenever I can. I believe that I was penalised in my examinations because I could not write as fast as right-handed children. Yet there are easy techniques available to help children to write properly. It is all to do with where one positions the paper on the desk, and then one can write comfortably and easily, and the problem goes away.
Despite all that, teacher training guidelines contain no specific reference to left-handedness. If teachers are not trained to deal with these issues, if they are not sensitised to them, they will not be properly aware of the difficulties and be able to ensure that left-handed children are afforded the attention they need.
The central issue is one of equality of opportunity—equal access to equipment, equal standards, and no unnecessary barriers in the way of our development. There is a staggering lack of official information on left-handedness, which has led to much ignorance in the educational establishment. For example, the Department for Education and Employment revealed:
The Department does not collect information on what proportion of pupils are left-handed, nor on whether being left-handed has an impact on likely educational achievement."—[Official Report, 17 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 540.]
We are dealing with a large number of children. It is estimated that there are 1.1 million left-handed children in our primary and secondary schools. The effect of co-ordinated action to bring out the best in all pupils will have an impact on all of us—particularly on children—in later life and at work.
I had hoped to share with the Minister and the House some detailed personal accounts of the difficulties faced by left-handed children and their parents. Shops like Anything Left-Handed receive a regular stream of letters from people expressing great gratitude for the way in which their children's lives have been transformed by what those shops are doing to help them realise that there is an answer to the problems. I should be happy to send the Minister moving accounts of the difficulties experienced, if she would find that helpful.
This is not a theoretical problem—it affects thousands upon thousands of our children in our schools every academic year. It is not a party political issue; it is a campaign which I began well before the last general election. I have asked questions of, and corresponded with, Ministers for several years. The problem is getting the Department for Education and Employment to recognise that there is a problem. For example, a letter from the Secretary of State's private secretary, dated 20 November 1997, stated:
It is not felt that left-handed pupils will have significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age, nor will it make it difficult for them to use the education facilities provided locally.

That is simply wrong. In the absence of proper organisation and well-thought-through classroom strategies, there are real problems.
The Government could easily deal with the problems. Most of all, I want to hear from the Minister today some acknowledgement that there are problems. That would be a breakthrough and a huge source of encouragement for left-handed campaigners throughout the country. The good news for the Government is that taking action would cost them virtually nothing; it is a zero-cost challenge. The Government should instruct the Teacher Training Agency to ensure that left-handedness is on the teacher training curriculum and that qualified teachers are provided with appropriate guidance.
The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—herself an enlightened teacher when it comes to left-handedness—told me recently that teachers are taught all kinds of details about the finer points of phonics, which are of no practical use in the classroom, when an hour or so on the identification of left-handed children and how to help them would be of immensely greater value.
The assurances that campaigners seek from the Minister are simple. The first is that, for the first time ever, the issue is being taken seriously by the Government. That would be enormously encouraging. The second is that the Government will take practical action to ensure that schools tackle the challenge of left-handedness.
When I was discussing the matter with my colleagues this morning, we came up with the thought that perhaps it could be part of the standard assessment test process, with teachers being required to indicate whether a child was left or right-handed. That would raise awareness in schools and focus the minds of teachers on the need to think about these issues rather earlier than many do at present.
Thirdly and most important, the teacher training syllabus should include left-handedness. It would not take a great deal of time, and it would be simple to deliver. That suggestion was rejected by the Department most recently in a letter on 27 May, but I hope that we can persuade the Minister to think again.
We need now teachers in the classroom who understand the problems. In that respect, I can conclude on an optimistic note. The Post Office is close to finalising a deal with Anything Left-Handed and the Left-Handers Club of Great Britain to produce a video and wall chart to help current teachers to understand what they can do to help left-handers. The video is being produced on the advice of the Teacher Training Agency, which has offered to assist with its distribution. I am a little surprised—I must be honest—that production of a piece of mainstream educational training material has had to rely on sponsorship rather than Government funding, but there we are.
The video should be produced quite soon, and I sincerely thank the Post Office for its enlightened sponsorship—which is genuinely first class. I hope that the Minister will welcome that initiative and commend it to schools, to enhance the prospect of their obtaining the material and applying it in the classroom.
The Government's reply to the debate will be made by one of their most sympathetic and diligent Ministers. A lot hangs on what she says in the next few minutes. If she does not accept that there is a problem, I really


do not know who will. Today is the day that we lefties demand our rights. I hope that we will not be disappointed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) not only on obtaining the debate but on the way in which he has tackled the issue—not only while I have been a Minister at the Department for Education and Employment but during the previous Government's time in office.
I was interested to hear at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech that he is an honorary member of the Left-Handers Club. I had not known anyone in the club until I met him, and he has certainly put it on my agenda in a way that no one else has.
I know that the hon. Gentleman sincerely cares about the issue and thinks that it is of real importance to many children in our schools. If he thinks that left-handedness has affected his development—I have had a quick chat with the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), who also is left-handed and has concurred with some of the hon. Gentleman's comments—the issue must be of concern to the Government. We do not want to pretend that it is not an issue. Today, therefore, I am prepared also to stand up for the rights of left-handed people. The debate centres on how great an issue it is and on exactly what has to be done.
We are accustomed in politics to arguing about left and right, and about the differences between the two, but the hon. Gentleman has put a new gloss on that debate. I wondered briefly whether the Government's search for a third way might be relevant to this debate, but—after 30 seconds—decided that, of all policy spheres, perhaps only left-handedness does not offer a third way. It really is a debate about left and right, and perhaps about achieving equal rights.
I hope that things have changed. My father was left-handed as a child and was forced to write with his right hand; he has developed the ability to write equally well with either hand—he is ambidextrous. The hon. Gentleman gave interesting examples of words that were used to describe left-handed people. I hope that none of them would be used now for that purpose.
I accept that there has been prejudice and discrimination against left-handed people, and a feeling that left-handedness was wrong and unacceptable. It was thought that left-handed people, perhaps like people with a squint in their eye, needed to be treated—corrective measures had to be taken so that they could be like the rest of world and write right-handed. I hope that we have put those days behind us.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman's story about the seven-year-old who was made to write with his right hand. Such a practice in our schools is totally unacceptable, and I hope that head teachers and others would act if a teacher ever made a child use a hand to write uncomfortably.
The list of famous people given by the hon. Gentleman partly defeats his own argument, as he cannot for a minute say that those left-handed people have not aspired to the greatest heights or achieved at the highest levels, or have not taken their place among the good and great.
In the past week—as I knew that I would have the honour of replying to the debate—I have asked everyone entering my office whether he or she is left-handed or right-handed. Initially, they gave me a strange look as—having come for a discussion on the national curriculum, for example—they did not know why they had to answer such a question. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Gentleman that many people in the Department are left-handed. I am thinking of launching an inquiry into a conspiracy in the Department, whereby only left-handed people have been given the top jobs.
I think that the hon. Gentleman and I can agree that left-handed people have not been held back. As someone who is very keen on watching tennis, I have often wondered why so many tennis finalists, for example, are left-handers.
Left-handedness is an issue, and there is probably a genuine debate about how it should be addressed. I was please to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he no longer felt that it was a special need. He took that line in some of our earlier correspondence. However, I entirely accept that I did not realise the basis of his position. Nevertheless, I would not have advised him to take that line, and I think that he was right to abandon it.
Left-handedness is not a special need, for two reasons. The first is that it is a norm for a group of people and should be as acceptable as other physical or mental characteristics. Labelling would be wrong for those who are left-handed. We do not want to give left-handed people a greater hang-up than they might have already about being in a minority. Labelling sends its own messages.
Secondly, I feel very strongly—having seen many of those who truly have special educational needs—that left-handed people will always have difficulties in competing for resources or expertise against children with genuine SENs, who require an awful lot of resources. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping to establish that we should no longer think of left-handedness as an SEN.
We do not count how many children are left-handed. Moreover—amazingly—we do not count how many children have special educational needs. There is subsequently a difficulty—which will not apply to left-handedness—in defining various special educational needs. Left-handed people are not being discriminated against, because those numbers are not being kept.
The hon. Gentleman will see that there is hope in the documents that we published recently—building on work set in train by the previous Government; I seek no political edge in the matter—on teacher training, children's needs and the need to be conscious of children's differences. I am optimistic, and think that there is a hook—I do not use the word as he did—on which we can hang greater awareness of left-handed children.
We are not terribly prescriptive in any of the documents on standards for qualified teacher status or SEN co-ordinators published by the Department or the Teacher Training Agency. We never say, "This is how you've got


to look at dyslexic children or at autism." None of those conditions is mentioned in any of the documents that we have published.
I cannot promise to start including in documents statements that trainee teachers should be taught about left-handed children. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman hope that embedded in the documents will be instructions to teacher trainers that teachers must be able to identify the needs of individual children and know that children must be dealt with individually.
I expect all teachers to know which children in their classes are left-handed. The hon. Gentleman's comments on elbows were helpful. Teachers have to know who is left-handed so that they can arrange their classroom and offer children specialist equipment and other help.
The issues of left-handedness have been placed firmly in my mind in the past 12 months, and today's public debate has reiterated issues raised in the private debate that the hon. Gentleman and I have had. I can give him the undertaking that I will talk to the TTA. I cannot deliver on his request to require all student teachers to be made aware of the problems of left-handedness, but, once we have seen the video produced by the Post Office—for whose sponsorship I am grateful—and determine that it is of an acceptable quality, we shall be happy to distribute it to all providers of initial teacher training. I am sure that he will be happy to accept that caveat. Perhaps that will be a first step in putting the issues in the minds of the public—as he and his former constituent have put the issue in my mind.
In my discussions with those who have influence in the matter and who train teachers, I am prepared to ensure that left-handedness is not thought of as a special condition, as part of the SEN agenda or as something peculiar or odd. We should ensure that all teachers—in their work in the classroom of identifying the special characteristics of each of our children—bear in mind the fact that left-handedness is an important facet of some children and must be taken into account in planning lessons.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire for drawing the matter to my attention. As someone who writes very badly, though with my right hand, I had not given proper thought to it before. By correspondence and in his speech today, the hon. Gentleman has enabled me to give it more thought. If that helps children and raises standards, the debate will have been worth while.

Argentina

Mr. Tom Cox: I begin by saying that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Argentina. It is a long time since the House debated the relationship between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Whatever problems may have existed between us in the past, I am delighted to say that the relationship is now excellent, and a wide range of activities takes place between our countries. I have no doubt that that relationship will be further enhanced by President Menem's official visit to the United Kingdom in October.
Contact between our two countries started long ago, and today many families living in Argentina can trace their roots back to the United Kingdom. Argentina is a large country. Its population is nearly 36 million. It is the second largest country in Latin America, and 10 times larger than the United Kingdom. In 1997, its economic growth was 8.4 per cent. For a number of years, it has followed policies of major economic reform, and its people and ours are pleased that it now has a thriving democracy, due to the policies of its Government and its President.
The normalisation of diplomatic and consular relations between our countries occurred in 1989–90. Since then, there have been many high-level visits. Argentina's Minister of Justice visited the United Kingdom and met the Lord Chancellor. Its Foreign Minister has met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and its Minister of Defence attended in London the first seminar on defence policy between our two countries.
The Lord Mayor of London has visited Argentina, as have the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment, my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. Although there have been important exchange visits, those of us who take an interest in the economic developments in that country feel that real progress has been made in that respect.
Argentina is now the second most important Latin American market for the United Kingdom. In 1997, British exports to Argentina were worth more than $800 million, and it is one of the fastest growing markets for the United Kingdom. I pay the warmest tribute to the many major British companies that, by sheer hard work, have developed a market for a wide range of products. Without doubt, they have used their experience and know-how to develop trade with Argentina.
In addition, United Kingdom direct investment in the country has been most impressive. More than $2.13 billion was invested between 1990 and 1996. I am also delighted that, as British trade and investment in Argentina have developed enormously, equally, trade and investment from Argentina are increasing here. The range of British companies investing there is most impressive, and includes all our major industries. They all praise the helpfulness of both Governments in developing the range of investment opportunities.
It is also pleasing to note that, although Argentina is a long way from Europe, it continues to develop links with the European Union. It also fully supports and works for the liberalisation of internal trade, a matter which both Governments pursue and seek to develop. All those developments closely build on the existing links between us, to the benefit of the people of both countries.
I mentioned the families who live in Argentina and can trace their links back over many years—in some cases, centuries—to the United Kingdom. I look to cultural and personal exchanges for further developments in culture, music, film, theatre and education. I hope that, in future, more young people will travel between our countries, and that the tourist trade will develop. Like the United Kingdom, Argentina is a beautiful country, with much to offer visitors. We all know that distance means very little these days. People visit countries throughout the world. I look to my hon. Friend, in his reply, to confirm that it is a future avenue of development between our countries.
I have already mentioned the problems between our countries in the past. Although there are differences concerning the Falkland Islands, they should be resolved by the two Governments and the people of the islands. In no way should they restrict the developments that I have already outlined.
I also mentioned President Menem's forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom in October. Bearing in mind Argentina's troubled past, he deserves enormous praise. He has led his country to the democracy that it now enjoys and protects, and he deserves great credit for that. He now travels to many countries throughout the world, and is always warmly received. I have no doubt that, when he makes his official Government visit to the United Kingdom, he will be warmly received here. His will be the first visit to the United Kingdom by an Argentine President since 1961, and he will be the official guest of the British Government. He will meet the Queen, the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers. He will address Members of both Houses of Parliament and meet a wide range of business people, undoubtedly seeking to develop trade and investment between our countries. His visit will build on the relationship that our two countries jealously seek to protect and develop.
Many hon. Members on both sides will join me in paying a warm tribute to His Excellency the Argentine ambassador—who, I am pleased to say, is in the House today—for all the work that he and his colleagues at the embassy do. He is a true friend of the United Kingdom, and has done a great deal to develop relations between our countries. I am sure that he will play a major role in the visit of President Menem in October.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I endorse what my hon. Friend has said about Rogelio Pfirter?

Mr. Cox: I welcome that endorsement. My hon. Friend has been in the House longer than I have and is held in the highest esteem by hon. Members on both sides. It is good that he has come to listen to the debate. I pay tribute to the role that he played when relations were different. He helped to build a relationship that our countries and our respective Parliaments welcome.
I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this short debate. I have tried to outline the enormous improvements in relations between our two countries, and explain why they are so important. I should like to pay a final, well deserved tribute to His Excellency the ambassador and all his colleagues at the embassy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing parliamentary time for this important debate on relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina, and the role of President Menem and his forthcoming visit.
It is appropriate that we are debating the subject today. I shall be visiting Buenos Aires in the next fortnight. However, the visit to Britain of President Menem later this year will be more important for our bilateral relations. As my hon. Friend has said, it is the first visit by an Argentine president for more than 30 years. That makes it an important landmark in relations between our countries.
The visit of President Menem sets the seal on the process, begun in 1989, of restoring the relationship between our two countries—a relationship that was broken by the Falklands war. The task of rebuilding the relationship has been made easier by our special ties of friendship, stretching back over two centuries, and the shared interests of the two countries. My hon. Friend mentioned Anglo-Argentine families who are proud of their British roots and of their Argentine status. We all applaud their role as the cement between our two countries. The warmth of our historical friendship emphasises how tragic the events of 1982 were.
It is appropriate that President Menem should be making his historic visit later this year. He began the process of reconciliation when he took power in 1989. One of his first acts as president was to lift the restrictions on trade with the United Kingdom. He deserves credit for recognising that our two countries have more to gain from working together than from maintaining the animosity that had been created by the war of 1982. He had to justify that brave decision to Argentine public opinion.
The president's decision led to the negotiations that created the so-called sovereignty umbrella—an arrangement by which we agreed to pursue issues of mutual interest without prejudicing either side's position on the sovereignty of the Falkland islands. In February 1990, less than a year after President Menem came to power, we reopened our embassies in our respective capitals. The relationship has gone from strength to strength ever since. I pay tribute to Ambassador Pfirter for his work on consolidating the relationship. He is well known to many hon. Members.
I shall talk in more detail later about the strength of our relationship, but first I must acknowledge the serious disagreement that remains in our relations with Argentina—over sovereignty over the Falklands. Argentina still disputes our claim. When we invited President Menem, we made it clear that the visit would not be an occasion to negotiate our sovereignty of the Falklands. Our position remains that we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the islands, and we remain fully committed to protecting the right of the Falkland islanders to determine their future.
There is no inconsistency between that and our real commitment to continue working with the Argentines on all other aspects of our relationship. There is no better example of that process than the progress on the sustainability of resources in the south Atlantic. We all gain from mutual co-operation. Co-operation in the south Atlantic fisheries commission has helped to conserve and manage important fish stocks.
We have an agreement for co-operation on hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation that benefits all. parties. The meeting of the South-west Atlantic Hydrocarbons Commission in Buenos Aires next week will be an important opportunity for both sides to continue our work on the preparation of a licensing round on the special co-operation area, which would have been unimaginable not many years ago. However, we shall also register our concerns about the draft legislation before the Argentine Congress, which threatens our interests in the exploration for and possible exploitation of oil in the south Atlantic.
When I visited the Falkland islands earlier this year, I told members of the Legislative Council that everyone applauded their maturity and decency in allowing the next of kin of Argentines who died in the Falklands to visit the Argentine graves on the island. I visited the Argentine cemetery. I also took the opportunity to encourage the council and other islanders to consider broadening their range of contacts with Argentina. That process of reconciliation and the development of mutual understanding would be helped by more interaction between the two communities. That would not compromise the sovereignty of the Falklands.
There is much that is positive in Britain's relations with Argentina. The Argentine and British Governments intend to ensure that the president's visit is a celebration of all that is good in our relationship—and there is much to celebrate. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting not mentioned democracy in Argentina, I would not have mentioned it—but not because democracy is not precious either in this country or in Argentina. Although I would never say that we take democracy for granted—anywhere—I would take for granted the fact that democracy in Argentina is well rooted and no longer subject to the questions of 15 years ago.
Argentina is committed to the achievement of genuine global free trade. A mark of its economic standing is its application to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which Britain fully supports. Reform has been just as evident in the political sphere. The anti-western, non-aligned rhetoric of the past has disappeared, and, for some years, Argentina has been playing an important role on the world stage.
I hope that hon. Members will have noticed that, when the Group of Eight Foreign Ministers recently invited a small group of other countries to join them to discuss efforts to co-ordinate the response to nuclear testing in India and Pakistan, Argentina was one of them. That was not an accident; it was recognition of the part that Argentina has played in helping to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the rapprochement between Argentina and Brazil led the way to the abandonment of nuclear development on the Latin American continent, and made South America a genuine nuclear-free part of the world.
In British eyes, Argentina is now firmly established as a close and trusted ally in many of the global issues of importance today, including on Iraq. Argentina is a major contributor to United Nations peacekeeping operations. British troops and Argentine troops serve side by side in several locations. In fact, in Cyprus, British troops serve under an Argentine general, whose appointment we gladly supported. That speaks volumes for the distance that we have travelled together.
I turn to trade and investment. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the efforts of business people of both countries in improving relationships, which I mirror. From virtually nothing in 1989, Argentina has become our second largest market in Latin America—ahead of Mexico and Chile. In 1997, it was one of our fastest growing markets anywhere in the world, taking £500 million-worth of British goods.
Along with Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, Argentina is a member of MERCOSUR, the common market of the southern cone, which is now the fourth largest trading bloc in the world. The export forum has identified it as one of the target areas for the UK. We have also been active in the European Union in promoting greater co-operation between our two regions.
British investment in financial and other services, as well as in manufacturing, has also been making impressive headway in Argentina. There is a long history of British companies investing in Argentina. People of my generation grew up with stories not only of British-led railway investment, but of the future of football being a product of it. Perhaps this year we have some cause to regret such investment. The long history of investment has recently been matched by spectacular change, and some significant newcomers.
It is difficult to give absolutely accurate figures for investment, but we estimate that, between 1990 and 1996, British investment in Argentina was worth between US$2 billion and US$3 billion, and that a further US$3 billion will be invested by the turn of the century.
The list of active players in the market reads like a "Who's Who" of British industry. My hon. Friend mentioned some significant names, and I shall mention some others. They include British Gas, the National Grid Company, Glaxo Wellcome, Reckitt and Colman, Cadbury Schweppes, Lloyds bank, which has invested in Argentina without a break since 1862, P and O, Pilkington, Imperial Chemical Industries, HSBC, Shell, United Utilities, Sun Alliance, Zeneca, Johnson Matthey, Rolls-Royce/Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. All those, and many others which have perhaps not had the same exposure, have seen the potential of the Argentine market and have moved in.
The climate for such impressive investment is an Argentine economy that, under the present Government, has conquered hyper-inflation and achieved significant levels of stability and growth in recent years. The House became aware of the tequila crisis of 1995, which moved south in Latin America, hitting the Argentine and other economies in the region very hard.
The speed of the recovery was impressive; the fact that mattered was not that the crisis had an impact, but that the economy was robust enough to withstand such a shock. Perhaps more significant, the lessons of that event have enabled the country so far to weather the storm of the Asian crisis with something to spare. That shows the strength of Argentina. It is worth noting that, since 1991, the Argentine economy has averaged growth of 6.1 per cent. against average inflation of under 1 per cent. since 1995, which must be some world record.
My hon. Friend mentioned the long list of official visitors we have received—and, indeed, those who have gone from Britain to Argentina. The list is impressive in its own right, and is significant testimony to the increasingly strong and vibrant relationship between our two nations and Governments. The Government hope—


we speak for the House and the country—that the visit of President Menem will be a chance for us to take a major step forward in promoting the important relationship. We and the Argentine Government are hoping to agree on a range of specific areas in which we can work together to our mutual advantage. That is one of the great advantages of a presidential visit.
I turn, as my hon. Friend did, to the future. He is right to say that our relationship with Argentina is based strongly in the past; it has been strong for hundreds of years, but since the late 1980s, it has become increasingly powerful. The figures that he and I have cited show just how powerful that relationship is—in economic terms as well as in international co-operation and bilateral exchange. I echo several of my hon. Friend's points.
I may sound a little like the Argentine tourist board, but Argentina is a spectacularly beautiful country. I look forward to going there in a couple of weeks. Its natural resources are enormous. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that, as a location for tourists, it offers great potential. In our ever smaller world, it is almost inconceivable that Europeans will not join the many north Americans who already travel there. I should say in passing, firmly putting my British hat on again, that we would welcome a significant increase in the number of Argentines who choose to visit Britain, which has many advantages too.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The flights are very expensive.

Mr. Lloyd: Although what my hon. Friend says is true, there has been significant progress on the issue of air routes. Frequency of air services, which encourages the necessary competition, and economies of scale will bring the prices down. We ought to see the benefit of cheaper air services as exchanges increase.
Perhaps the most important comment that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting made concerned young people. The relationship between the two countries is based not only on trade but on a firm commitment to shared values and culture.

Mr. Richard Allan: I am certainly very interested in the interaction between universities of both countries. Young people who study in another country gain a love for it that stays with them throughout their lives. I hope that the Minister confirms that the link between universities will be a significant item on the agenda for discussion with President Menem and his advisers later in the year.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Given that Argentina's Foreign Minister has a distinguished academic record in the British university system, and continues to play an active role in that sphere, the exchange of students must be high on the agenda of us all. It is through such exchange that we embrace each other's values. We need to work together—country to country, people to people—to increase trade as well as understanding.
The Government believe very firmly that Britain and Argentina have, over the past nine years, found a way to build on the positive part of our relationship without letting our obvious differences intrude unnecessarily. We hope to continue that process; we will both work hard in that direction. We both have much to gain from it. The visit of President Menem in October will significantly enhance that process. As the architect of the reconciliation process that allowed us to embark on the revitalisation of our relationship, he will be a most welcome visitor.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF EDINBURGH (GUIDED BUSWAYS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Community Hospitals

Mr. Philip Hammond: What representations he has received concerning the closure of community hospitals in Wales. [50267]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): Since 1 May 1997, I have received a number of representations about proposals by health authorities for the closure of hospitals in Wales, including an Adjournment debate last Thursday initiated by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). Such proposals are the responsibility of health authorities and are referred to me for decision only if they cannot be agreed with the local community health council. To date, I have received no such referrals.

Mr. Hammond: The Minister will be aware of the strength of the opposition from both health care professionals and patients in Powys to the proposed merger of the Powys Health Care NHS trust and the Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS trust, because of fears that the merger would inevitably lead to the closure of community hospitals. He will also be aware of the level of expectations raised throughout the country by the Chancellor's much hyped announcement last week of additional resources for the national health service.
If Labour's manifesto commitment to save the NHS in Wales is to mean anything to the people of Powys, will the Minister give the House an assurance that the saving of the community hospital-based system in Powys will an absolute priority in the spending of the additional NHS funds allocated to Wales? Will he confirm that, as a result of that extra money, none of the community hospitals in Powys will close?

Mr. Griffiths: The reconfiguration of the trusts in Wales will make more money available for patient care in Powys and Ceredigion, and everywhere else, so the two issues of community hospitals and of trust reconfiguration have nothing to do with one another. I confirm that the extra money provided for the health service in Wales by the Chancellor will be spent on ensuring that we have a better health service throughout Wales.
As for community hospitals, I will await proposals to see whether there are disagreements. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in Tenby an agreement has already been made whereby the community hospital is to close, but other provision has been agreed by all concerned.
I am confident about what will happen in Powys and Ceredigion—and, by the way, there is widespread support in Ceredigion for the trust reconfiguration proposal. I certainly hope that there will be a proposal for Powys and Ceredigion that will provide better care for everybody.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind my hon. Friend of two excellent local hospitals,

Meadowslea and Dobshill, in my constituency, which he has not yet visited, and about which there are rumours of closure? Does he agree that those hospitals have a wonderful record? Will he please visit them? Is it not the case that, now that the Chancellor has made money available, there should be no need for rumours of closure?

Mr. Griffiths: I assure my hon. Friend that I certainly shall make an effort to visit those two hospitals in the near future. I have heard nothing about rumours of closure and I reassure him that the extra money provided by the Chancellor will ensure that there will be a better health service in Wales in the coming years and, as long as there is a Labour Government, that will continue.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was preaching a lot of humbug, because it was his party that first put the skids under the idea of closing community hospitals?
When the Minister receives an objective report from Dr. Robert Maxwell of the King's Fund which recommends that community hospitals in Powys remain open and that there is no amalgamation of the Ceredigion trust, will he take note of those recommendations and act positively on them?

Mr. Griffiths: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's first question—I have no problem with that. I underscore the fact that the trust reconfiguration exercise has absolutely nothing to do with the future of community hospitals. The additional money that the exercise will produce will make it more, rather than less, likely that community hospitals will survive. I look forward to reading the Maxwell report commissioned by Powys Action for Patients, but we must await the outcome of the consultation before any final decisions are made.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: In view of the substantial extra resources now to be devoted to the health service—5 per cent. extra in real terms for the next three years—is there not an overwhelming case for all health authorities to reconsider any closure plans and the Government's policy of halting the steep decline in the number of hospital beds? We need the beds, we need the hospitals, and we now have a Government who are providing the resources to sustain them.

Mr. Griffiths: I assure my hon. Friend that the Chancellor's decision to provide additional money for three years ahead will give health authorities and everyone in the health service the chance properly to plan for the provision of health care. I am confident that health authorities, trusts and all those involved in providing health care will be grateful for that extra money, and will use it wisely to promote and enhance patient care.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister recall that the Madog community hospital in Porthmadog was closed on the basis that there would be a new community hospital in that town and that, when a delegation met him to discuss that point, he made it clear that it was a matter for the North Wales health authority and the Gwynedd Community Health NHS trust? Now that the health authority and the community trust have


supported the idea of a new hospital and the Minister has an abundance of new money available, will he give the go-ahead for that hospital?

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that there is an abundance of new money available, thanks to the Chancellor. We shall consider the proposal for the right hon. Gentleman's constituency when it is put before us. I am pleased that there is at last agreement. We must now consider the best way of making sure that the hospital is provided.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous support and affection for the Mardy hospital in Merthyr? Will he reassure the House that, if the proposal to close the hospital is pushed through, the new community hospital that has been proposed will be built?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will know that I visited the Mardy hospital, and I well appreciate the difficulties for staff operating from there in providing high-quality care for patients. I do not want to comment specifically on a possible closure or replacement, but I would want to be absolutely sure that, in the event of any closures, there would be proper provision in Merthyr Tydfil and the North Glamorgan NHS trust area.

Dr. Liam Fox: All parties in the House understand the need to obtain value for money in health care; but, having worked as a doctor in community hospitals, I know that the value of community hospitals has to be measured in more than simply economic terms. Would it not be money well spent to keep local people in a local environment, within easy access of families, transport and support? What assessment has the Minister made of the average cost per day per bed in community hospitals compared with that in acute units in Wales?

Mr. Griffiths: First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as someone who, as a child, spent some time in the Brecon war memorial hospital, I am well aware of the good service provided by community hospitals. It would not take a genius to know that care in a community hospital costs far less per bed than in an acute general or district hospital. Community hospitals have a valuable role to play and I want to be sure that, throughout Wales, facilities in general and district hospitals and in community hospitals are properly interlinked.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his announcement of no less than £1 billion extra for health spending in Wales. Does he agree that tackling the chronic levels of ill health in Wales requires a strategic approach, and that the pledge of extra money will go a long way towards committing money for that strategy?

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation and question. In addition to the extra money, we have also developed a strategy to raise health standards in our "Better Health—Better Wales" Green Paper. We want to tackle the causes of bad health as well as treating it. The money will surely help us to raise health standards in Wales.

Millennium Compliance (Hospitals)

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What representations he has received concerning the millennium computer bug in hospitals in Wales. [50268]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): None, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Swayne: How many mission-critical systems affect life and death, and what guarantee can the Minister give that those systems will function securely after the millennium?

Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter and thank him for raising it. We are taking the matter much more seriously than the previous Conservative Government. We have already issued four NHS circulars to trust and health authority chief executives, we are establishing an NHS steering group, and we shall be tackling the matter as best we can to ensure compliance as early as possible in 1999.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Audit Commission's report on the progress of public bodies in tackling the millennium bug problem has been described as "chilling", and the Government's reaction to it as "astonishingly complacent", as evidenced by Labour Members' lack of interest in asking a supplementary question on the matter. As the cost of tackling the millennium problem in the NHS has been estimated at between £230 million and £850 million, and the average information technology spend within the NHS each year is about £100 million, from where will the extra money come to ensure that the life-saving equipment necessary to keep hospitals functioning will be working effectively after 1 January?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the life-saving issues at stake in the NHS, but why, when we took office, had virtually nothing been done by the Conservative Government to tackle the problem? We have put in place a series of systematic measures, rigorously tracked through by Ministers and health officials, to ensure that there is full compliance in the health service by 2000, and earlier if possible.

Countryside Policies

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on his policies for the countryside. [50269]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I am committed to policies that conserve the countryside within a sustainable development framework that will improve economic, social and environmental conditions for the people of Wales.

Sir Sydney Chapman: When does the Secretary of State expect to publish the separate White Paper on an integrated transport policy for Wales as foreshadowed in the White Paper on the future of transport, published earlier this week? Will he assure the House that it will


address the distinct and different needs for public transport services in the Welsh countryside and, in particular, the need for better bus services?

Mr. Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuine and obvious interest in the problems of rural transport. On Friday, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), intends to publish the Government's proposals for the development of such an integrated transport system in Wales—I shall arrange for the hon. Gentleman to receive a copy.
I very much understand the case for developing distinctive policies in the countryside; if we are to have integrated transport systems for the whole country, we must reflect the particular needs of the countryside. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made £50 million available in the Budget specifically to improve mobility in the countryside. In Wales, the greater part of the money will be spent on the development of new and improved bus services, but there will also be small-scale imaginative projects to develop informal transport links for the remotest communities.

Dr. Liam Fox: It is astonishing that no Labour Back Bencher stood up to express interest in countryside issues in Wales. What policies will the Secretary of State introduce to ensure that new entrants can gain access to farming in Wales? Does he understand farmers' anxiety about the next generation's prospects of gaining access to the land? What positive news can he give them other than sympathy, which pays no wages?

Mr. Davies: Most of my hon. Friends were at the royal Welsh show in Builth Wells earlier this week, where they had the opportunity to talk at first hand to countryside people about the problems facing the countryside. In direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, it has never been my intention to offer sympathy to the people of the working countryside in Wales; I have always made it clear to them that I understand—and shall work with them to try to resolve—the problems.
I give the hon. Gentleman a list of our achievements over the past 15 months. We have ensured that the end of the beef ban is now in sight, and I remind him that the Conservative Government were responsible for the waste of billions of pounds of public money and the collapse of the beef industry through their failure to tackle the problems of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
We have introduced new initiatives, including a food promotion policy and schemes to implement agri-environmental policies. We are consulting on the restructuring of the agricultural community, and we are considering how hill livestock compensatory allowances can be reorganised. The hon. Gentleman will understand that a new vibrancy is afoot in the Welsh countryside; Welsh farmers and others who work in the countryside know that, in Labour, they have a Government they can trust.

NHS Trusts (Reorganisation)

Mr. Llew Smith: If he will make a statement on proposals for the reorganisation of health trusts in Wales. [50270]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): Public consultation on proposals to reduce the number of national health trusts in Wales from 26 to 15 started on 22 June and will end on 21 September. Copies of the relevant consultation documents have been issued to hon. Members who represent constituencies in Wales and have also been placed in the Library of the House. Final decisions on the proposals will be taken later this year, after we have fully considered all responses to the consultation.

Mr. Smith: Will my hon. Friend explain why he proposes in his consultation document on health trusts in Wales that the health trust to serve my constituency will cover a population of some 550,000, together with people in the catchment areas of Herefordshire and south Powys, whereas the health trust to serve his constituency will cover a population almost half that number? Is he not worried that, in this year when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the national health service, he is considering implementing proposals that almost no one in my constituency—which can rightly claim to be the birthplace of the NHS—supports?

Mr. Griffiths: On the size of the new NHS trusts—if they are approved after consultation—the proposal for one trust for Gwent and for two for Iechyd Morgannwg were drawn up by the health authorities after wide consultation in their areas; moreover, that proposal, which I consider reasonable, is being put forward for wider public consultation. I believe that, at this stage, the one-trust option in Gwent offers the greatest savings, which will provide more money for health care in Gwent. It will also enable a much better match between local authority social services departments and the NHS in Gwent.

Mr. James Gray: How many representations has the Minister received opposing the reorganisation of health trusts in Wales?

Mr. Griffiths: Across Wales, remarkably few. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact number, but I am quite prepared to provide that in writing and to put a copy of that answer in the House of Commons Library. I have had quite a few representations from Gwent, Powys and Llanelli, but not that many from elsewhere in Wales.

NHS Trust (North Gwent)

Mr. Huw Edwards: What representations he has received concerning the case for a separate NHS trust for north Gwent. [50271]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): The Welsh Office has received 13 representations in respect of a separate trust for north Gwent since public consultation started on proposals to establish a single NHS trust to serve the Gwent health authority area on 22 June. Before the consultation, I received more than 50 individual representations from hon. Friends and other interested parties, as well as petitions signed by 26 hospital consultants and more than 4,000 members of the general public.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for agreeing to meet a delegation that will include me and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) tomorrow morning, when he will receive the compelling case for having a separate trust for north Gwent. That would ensure greater accountability of health services in north Gwent and maintain the integrity of Nevill Hall hospital as a district general hospital. When my hon. Friend receives that evidence, will he give serious consideration to having a separate trust for north Gwent?

Mr. Griffiths: I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and other community representatives tomorrow and to reading the detailed proposal for a two-trust option. However, there is no danger whatsoever of services at Nevill Hall hospital being adversely affected by the one-trust proposal. When considering proposals for the Gwent health authority area, I shall be looking at which proposal of all the ones available to me is likely to provide the best health service and more money for patient care.

Scottish Universities

Mr. Andrew Robathan: How many Welsh students currently attend universities in Scotland. [50274]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): In 1997–98, there were 602 Welsh-domiciled students studying at Scottish higher education institutions.

Mr. Robathan: I am sure that some of those students will be constituents of the Minister and I suspect that they will be unhappy should they have to pay the extra year's tuition fees. May I quote what the Minister's right hon. Friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff said? He is a man who has spent rather more time in Wales than the Minister, who had to hawk himself around the Labour party bazaars of England before coming to rest in Neath. Of the compromise that has been reached, Lord Callaghan said:
the Government are morally bound to accept all the major conclusions that follow from it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 123.]
I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and put it to his constituents if they come to him about having to pay that extra year's tuition fees.

Mr. Hain: You will forgive me, I am sure, Madam Speaker, if I refer in passing to the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not asked a single question in that respect about English students, or about his own constituents; so it is clearly not a problem for them. In fact, the number of applications from Wales to Scottish institutions is up this year. The principle involved is that we are providing a fairer system of funding for all students in Britain, which will give greater opportunity and greater access to higher education.

A55

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: When he expects work to commence on the A55 road across Anglesey. [50275]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Tenders for the scheme have been received and are under consideration. The contract is expected to be let in the autumn, with completion three years later, on schedule.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will know that there has been intense speculation in the press about whether the autumn start date will be met. At the last general election, there was all-party support in Anglesey for the view that that road project should start, given the enormous problems of traffic across the island. Will the Minister give an assurance that, when the tenders are in and the contractor approved, work on the road will start in the autumn?

Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and his continuing interest in the matter. I assure him that we agree with him 100 per cent., which is why this road project was the only one excluded from the review of Welsh roads. We are committed to it as a priority. The tenders are now being considered in their final stages and the contract will be let in the autumn. Work will begin as quickly as possible thereafter and we will stick to our completion date of 2001 under the contract as planned.

Agri-environmental Scheme

Mr. Cynog Dafis: When he intends to publish his proposals for an all-Wales agri-environmental scheme. [50276]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), gave a progress report on the all-Wales agri-environment scheme at the Royal Welsh show in Builth Wells yesterday.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State accept that the support of farmers is absolutely essential if the tir gofal scheme is to work? Does he accept also that, if the resources provided for expanding the scheme are insufficient and large numbers of farmers are turned down, it will cause great disenchantment and disappointment? Does he agree that those in Wales who are most seriously committed to the agri-environmental system strongly oppose a ranking system based on the supposed ecological value of the farm as a condition for entry into the scheme? Will the Secretary of State agree to consider adding a tier within the scheme for organic farming, bearing in mind the fact that that would have considerable benefits for the market and for the price that farmers in it would get for their produce?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has asked five questions and I will not attempt to answer them all in detail. There is an organic conversion scheme in operation and it will continue to exist alongside the tir gofal scheme. A broad welcome for tir gofal was expressed to me at the Royal Welsh show on Monday. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we must ensure continuing support for the farming community. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are consulting widely with farmers.
On resources, in September we will produce in Wales a document setting out our priorities as a result of the comprehensive spending review. I shall obviously do


what I can to ensure that the scheme is funded properly. On ranking, it is an important principle that the schemes that offer best value for money, and therefore the best environmental enhancement, receive the highest priority.

Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his proposals assist the fanners of the vale of Glamorgan in their endeavours to maintain the environment and the countryside in the face of a drop in farm incomes caused by the dreadful policies of the previous Government over the past five years?

Mr. Davies: The scheme is important, because it will bring environmental benefits. It will also help to provide an alternative income stream for farmers who, as my hon. Friend said, have been hard hit over the past couple of years. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I am discussing with my officials and the farming unions the best way of ensuring that all the counties of Wales have an opportunity to have schemes in their areas, if only for exemplary purposes to spread the message that good farming is compatible with the best environmental practice.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Secretary of State presumes that farmers will survive, but some farms have lost 80 per cent. of their income. When will the Secretary of State wake up to the real crisis in Welsh farming and react accordingly?

Mr. Davies: I do not presume that, and I am working hard to ensure that it does not happen.

Powys and Ceredigion NHS Trusts

Mr. Lembit Öpik: What account he will take of public opinion in formulating his proposals on the future of the Powys Health Care NHS trust and Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS trust. [50272]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): Consultation is currently taking place on a proposal to merge the Powys Health Care and Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS trusts. Consultation ends on 21 September and it is only after that time that my right hon. Friend and I will make a decision on the proposal, taking into account representations received.

Mr. Öpik: Will the Minister confirm my understanding of his earlier remark that he does not foresee the closure of any Powys hospital if an overwhelming majority of local people oppose that move? Will he confirm also that this is a genuine consultation process and that, if the overwhelming majority of people in Powys oppose the merger, he will respect their democratic will?

Mr. Griffiths: May I put the hon. Gentleman right on the issue of community hospitals? What I said very clearly is that no community hospital is threatened by the NHS trust reconfiguration proposal. With the money that the Chancellor has made available and the additional money that will be made available through the trust reconfiguration process, it is much more likely that community hospitals will prosper under Labour's proposals than under any others.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When the Minister reorganises the Powys and Ceredigion health

trusts, will he also make provision for top slicing, so that patients in mid-Wales who need heart transplant surgery will not have to go to London but will be able to go to the long-awaited heart transplant surgery centre in the University hospital of Wales in Cardiff?

Mr. Griffiths: As my hon. Friend knows, we are working hard with NHS health authorities in Wales to strengthen the cardiac service in the UHW so that in future patients in mid-Wales can travel to Cardiff rather than London.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Mr. Hughes: May I remind the Prime Minister of two pre-election Labour pledges, which are of interest to millions of people in London and beyond? The first was that a Labour Government would hold a public inquiry into the sinking of the Marchioness, with the loss of 51 lives; and the second was that Guy's hospital at London Bridge would be saved.
Now that the Government have been in office for 15 months, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that a public inquiry will soon be announced, and that the plans that have just arrived on ministerial desks proposing the closure of the maternity and accident and emergency departments at Guy's hospital, and the halving of the number of beds from 700 to 350, will be rejected, and replaced with plans that save and strengthen Guy's hospital rather than threaten it?

The Prime Minister: First, in respect of the position in the hospitals, we shall study those plans very carefully indeed and ensure that any commitments that we come up with are consistent with proper health care in London. We shall be putting a substantial extra sum of money into health care in London. Secondly, in respect of the Marchioness, it would not be right for me to comment until an announcement has been made, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Angela Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware of the strong approval around the world for the British Government's actions in supporting the setting up of the International Criminal Court as the only way to deal with the perpetrators of war crimes and international atrocities, including disasters such as Lockerbie? Will he take every opportunity to try to persuade those Governments, such as the Chinese and United States Governments, who have not yet signed up to do so as a matter of urgency?

The Prime Minister: We warmly welcome the agreement in Rome last week to establish the International


Criminal Court. We believe that the court will be an effective, credible and independent body that is able to bring to justice those charged with international crimes.
In respect of Lockerbie, about which there has been a lot of discussion in the press, I shall simply say that it has long been a priority of this Government to bring to trial the two Libyans accused of responsibility for the Lockerbie tragedy. It has been our wish that the trial should take place in Scotland or the United States, and I totally reject the claim that there would be any difficulty in holding a fair trial in Scotland.
Because no progress has been made, we are prepared to look at alternative ways of giving the families the justice that they deserve. That is why we launched discussions with the United States, and more recently with the Dutch, about the possibility of trial in a third country. However, there are many, many legal and other complexities to be overcome before we can be sure that that is the right way to proceed. Until those issues are resolved, no final decision can be made, but we have been working on the matter thoroughly over a long period. We must ensure that any solution that we come up with is fully consistent with our absolute commitment to the integrity of the Scottish judicial system.

Mr. William Hague: After all the promises before the election and all the hype since, is it not now clear that the Deputy Prime Minister's transport White Paper is a complete dog's breakfast? Is not the truth that it is elderly people and low-income motorists—people who are only just able to pay for a car and people who cannot afford an increase in the cost of using their car—who will be hit hardest by the new taxes that he has proposed, with no guarantee that they will receive any benefits in return?

The Prime Minister: I have to say that the Conservatives' attack on the possibility of congestion charges and taxes reaches new heights of opportunism and hypocrisy, even for them. Let me quote from the April 1996 document put out by the right hon. Gentleman's Government, when he was a member of the Cabinet:
local authorities are to take the main role in deciding the right strategies for their areas, they have to have sufficient tools for the job. These might include powers to restrain traffic by local licensing measures or electronic charging…or powers aimed at reducing the provision of off-street non-residential parking.
It went on:
The Government will therefore discuss with the Local Authority Associations…with a presumption in favour of introducing legislation in due course".
We are taking forward precisely the work that his Government did, and our plans for pensioners and for rural transport will help, not harm, those on low incomes.

Mr. Hague: And I have to say that it is time that the Prime Minister started answering questions in the House about his policy and the policy that he wants to pursue. He talks about rural transport; the Government have announced £50 million for it, after taking hundreds of millions of pounds out of the pockets of rural motorists in the Chancellor's past two Budgets. On Monday, the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not here—presumably his bus is running late—told school-run mothers, people struggling home with their weekly shopping and people

living in the countryside that they were making unnecessary journeys. Then he jumped into his car and was driven 200 yards to the office.
Will the Prime Minister at least give a clear answer to this question: can he guarantee that he will not permit new taxes on motorists to be imposed until viable transport alternatives are in place, rather than only talked about?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely in order to do that that we have announced the plans that we have. What is more, those plans are £1.8 billion-worth of extra public investment in transport, over and above Conservative plans. As for what the right hon. Gentleman says about the rises in fuel duty, might I remind him that five sixths of that rise was imposed by his Government? I know that he would like to pretend that the 18 years of the Conservative Government never existed, but they did. As he well knows, it is the grossest opportunism to claim that we are introducing charges and taxes when all that we are introducing is permission for local authorities to experiment with them, in precisely the same way that the Government whom he supported wanted them to do.

Mr. Hague: After all that, the Prime Minister has still not answered the question. Will he make sure that no new taxes are imposed until viable alternative transport is in place? He talks about £1.8 billion of extra expenditure; the total extra new money announced by the Chancellor last week for public transport was £22 million, not £1.8 billion. How will he explain to people around the country—school-run mothers, people who take their shopping home in their car and people in the countryside—why they are paying billions of pounds of extra taxes and getting nothing in return?

The Prime Minister: First of all, in relation to the right hon. Gentleman's nonsense about school-run mothers, let me remind him that the Deputy Prime Minister said that, if we can provide better public transport, more people will be able to use it, which is why we are putting the extra £1.8 billion into it.
It was interesting that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be attacking us for not spending enough on transport. He is nodding now. I know that the Conservative party does not keep any policy for long, but yesterday he was telling us that our spending plans were dangerous and irresponsible. The shadow Chancellor nods.
So far, the Opposition health and education spokesman has said that it is not enough. The defence spokesman has said that we are cutting defence spending, and that he wants more. The agriculture spokesman wants more, and the shadow Home Secretary wants more. In the interests of further public debate, let the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box and tell us which part of the spending plans he disagrees with. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must quieten down.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I trust that the Prime Minister will not send me for an early bath if I raise again the subject of football, which has so recently preoccupied the nation. Will he ensure that the £120 million of public lottery money that was supposed


to purchase the Wembley site for the new national stadium will be safeguarded by the English National Stadium Trust, and that the money will not be used as a short-term interest-free loan to subsidise the Football Association?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall ensure that the money is used wisely, in the interests of football.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Ashdown.

Hon. Members: Oh no.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful for hon. Members' good wishes. That is how things should be.
This time last week, the Prime Minister told me that the total increase in real-terms investment in health and education that he had promised would be delivered, whatever the economic situation. I use his words. Two hours later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, if inflation went up by more than his forecast, the real-terms increase in spending on schools and hospitals would fall below the amount that he had promised. Which is true?

The Prime Minister: It is entirely right to say that the amount that we have set out is a three-year spending settlement. The money will be delivered and guaranteed—and, in fact, the Chancellor said precisely that in the evidence that he gave.

Mr. Ashdown: The Chancellor said precisely that, if inflation went up beyond his forecast, the budgets would stay the same, which means that value diminishes. The position is simple: a 1 per cent. increase above the Chancellor's forecast means £5 billion less for health and education. The Prime Minister must answer this question: is it not the case that, if his forecasts are wrong, schools and hospitals will pay the price?

The Prime Minister: We have based the figures on our own forecasts, which is the sensible thing for a Government to do. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should guarantee extra sums over and above that. We have entered into commitments for additional spending on health and education. Of course they were based on what we forecast will happen to the economy; that is sensible and prudent. What would be foolish would be to guarantee an extra £5 billion, which is what the right hon. Gentleman wants us to do.
As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman earlier, the actual amount that we are putting into schools and hospitals is substantially more than the Liberal Democrats ever asked for. I am beginning to think that we have reached the point at which, whatever sum we come up with, the Liberal Democrats will say that it is not enough. That may be the world of the Liberal Democrats, but it is not the real world.

United Nations

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When he last met President Clinton to

discuss matters relating to the funding of peacekeeping operations and human rights programmes currently being undertaken by the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: We attach great importance to the proper funding of all United Nations operations. We have made clear to our United States colleagues our view that the United States should pay its arrears and future contributions promptly, in full and without conditions. I welcome President Clinton's commitment, in his State of the Union Address, to solving the problem of the US arrears.

Dr. Godman: May I remind the Prime Minister that some of the world's poorest countries are owed money by the United Nations for their peacekeeping work, and that that is a direct result of Congress's obdurate refusal to sanction the payment of the $1.1 billion that is owed by America to the UN? When will European leaders—including the Prime Minister—stand up to those people on Capitol Hill? Should they not be told, "You must pay up, or risk losing your voting rights"? That may be easier for me to say than the Prime Minister, but someone must tell the Americans that they must pay up in the interests of millions of people in poor countries.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that, among my many and varied responsibilities, responsibility for the American Congress is not one, and I am thankful for that most of the time. We have done everything that we can. We have constantly pressed the United States but, to be fair to President Clinton, he agrees that the US should pay its arrears. As my hon. Friend implied, the problem is with the US Congress.
We must keep up the pressure on America to pay its arrears and to make its contributions. It is in all our interests internationally that the US stays engaged. We shall make progress as fast as we can—[Interruption.] Perhaps the anti-American tendency on the Conservative Back Benches will allow me to continue. We shall make progress as fast as we can, but Britain is not able to make the US pay its contributions.

Engagements

Mr. Howard Flight: The Prime Minister has just confirmed to the House that the Government guarantee their cash spending plans for the next three years. If, as most economists expect, economic growth and revenues are lower than the Chancellor has forecast, will the Government increase borrowing or taxation?

The Prime Minister: We are entirely confident in our assumptions. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the additional spending that we have proposed.

Mr. Flight: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of that. I remind the House that, just before the election, he said:
State pensions should be privatised and other forms of personal insurance, such as sickness and unemployment benefit, transferred to the private sector.


That may be his desire, but it is not the desire of the overwhelming majority of the British people.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Before entering the House, I was a full-time NHS general practitioner. One of the main complaints that I received from doctors, nurses and patients was that the treatment available depended more on where people lived than on what was wrong with them. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the wide-ranging changes proposed for the NHS will end the postcode care lottery once and for all?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We have put a substantial amount of extra money into the national health service to give it the investment that it needs, coupled with the reform that it also needs. One of those reforms is to get rid of the Tory internal market and to devote those resources to health care. Another is to end the two-tier nature of the health service.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will today announce that we shall agree to the main recommendation in the third report of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee that the annual intake of students to medical schools in the United Kingdom should be increased by 1,000. He told the Select Committee on Health that the, as yet unvalidated, figures for June show a further fall in waiting lists of 20,000. I hope that people will now realise that the national health service has the future that it needs and deserves under the new Labour Government.

Mr. William Hague: There is growing consensus among independent forecasters, whom the Prime Minister has just tried to brush aside, that the Chancellor's growth forecasts are optimistic. In the light of that, does not the Government's decision, which the right hon. Gentleman has just confirmed, to lock themselves into spending increases of £110 billion—it is their total loss of control of the social security budget to which we are opposed—look increasingly like a reckless gamble with jobs and prosperity?

The Prime Minister: I said that it was odd that the Opposition change policy in a day. They have now changed it in 10 minutes. Now the right hon. Gentleman is against the spending proposals. All the 44 independent forecasts show that, on any of those forecasts, we would meet our golden rules. Under this Government, we shall have a current account in surplus, as opposed to deficit under the Tories. We shall get the debt to GDP ratio down and, as opposed to the £27 billion of borrowing that we inherited from him, we shall have cut that to near zero.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister also knows that the budget will not be in balance at any point of the economic cycle, according to the Chancellor's forecasts; that the Treasury now admits that its forecasts are more optimistic than the average of 27 leading City forecasters; that the new president of the Confederation of British Industries says that we are heading for higher taxes—[Interruption.] They like listening to the CBI when it suits them but not when it does not suit them. Salomon Brothers Investment bank says:
The golden economy left by the last Government is becoming the sick man of Europe.

Ernst and Young says that the Chancellor's plans will make it impossible to cut interest rates in the next 18 months. Does the Prime Minister remember that one of his early pledges was to keep interest rates as low as possible? Does he now realise that he has made that impossible, and is that not yet another early pledge that he has abandoned early?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that at all. First, the actual forecasts upon which our figures are based are the low end of the forecast. They are entirely and precisely in line with the CBI forecast on growth. As for interest rates going up, yes, they have had to go up since the election because we inherited an economy with inflation back in the system and heading for the days that we had under the Conservatives of 15 per cent. interest rates and boom and bust.
The right hon. Gentleman failed to answer the questions on spending. Perhaps he will now answer this question when he rises to the Dispatch Box. For over a year, the Tories have failed to tell us whether they support the independence of the Bank of England or oppose it, and whether they would have raised interest rates at all since the election. Perhaps, in the interests of debate, we can now have an answer to those questions.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister, in one of those bland assertions that he makes at the Dispatch Box, says that the Government forecasts are at the low end of the range of forecasts. Fortunately, I have the Treasury figures here. The Chancellor has forecast growth of between 1¾and 2¼ per cent. in 1999. The average of the independent forecasters is 1.7 below the low end of the Chancellor's forecast and the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister has just asserted to be the truth, as is so often the case.
The truth is that he said he would cut welfare bills but they are now going up by £37 billion. He said that he would be prudent with the nation's finances and he is now gambling with them. He said that he would keep inflation on target and he has missed the target in 13 months out of 14. He said that there would be no tax increases at all and there have been 17 tax increases. What was meant to be early about the early pledges except the breaking of them?

The Prime Minister: As usual, we got not a single answer out of the right hon. Gentleman on any of the points that were put to him. As I explained to him a moment or two ago, our forecasts are actually based on the low end of the Treasury forecast, and are entirely consistent with all the independent forecasts. Furthermore, as a result of the forecasts—[Interruption.] Perhaps, instead of throwing bits of paper at me, he might try to work out where the Conservative party stands on some of the policy issues that face us. We have presented our spending plans based on our forecasts. We believe that they are right and prudent. They will give us current account surpluses, as I explained, and they will reduce the debt to GDP ratio of the economy.
Why can we not get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on where he stands? Does he think that there should be more spending or less? Come on! He does not know where he stands on monetary policy or on the Bank of England, and he does not know whether the spending plans are too little, too much or about right. He and his party have still not worked out why they lost the last


election. They lost it because people want additional expenditure on schools and hospitals. They now know that we will provide that money for schools and hospitals, whereas the Conservative party would take it away.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: At the end of the first full academic year of the new Labour Government, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in praising our teachers, many of whom are dealing with very difficult behaviour in the classroom—for example, throwing bits of paper across the desk? In addition to the welcome resources that the new Labour Government have made available, is there not a need to reinvigorate and re-energise our teachers if we are to meet the education goals that we have set ourselves?

The Prime Minister: The Government's purpose is to put an additional £19 billion over three years into education, but precisely in exchange for reform. I welcome the tremendous work done by many of our teachers throughout the country, but we need reform in the standards, in local education authorities, in literacy and numeracy, in higher education and in the teaching profession itself.
We shall work with the teaching profession and others in the education system to get the reforms through. The deal offered by the Government of substantial additional money in exchange for reform gives our children the best chance of a decent future that they have had for decades.

Mr. David Prior: The Prime Minister has said that he expects his Ministers to be purer than pure. In the light of press reports and his own deep personal knowledge of the business dealings and career of the Paymaster General, does he believe that the Paymaster General is indeed purer than pure?

The Prime Minister: Every time that the Conservatives have made an allegation, it has been proved to be worthless. That has been the case every single time. The latest was a series of allegations that were investigated by the relevant Committee, which said that no action should be taken. I well understand why the hon. Gentleman raises such issues—it is because he has absolutely nothing to say about the serious issues of the day.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: For too long, too many people with disabilities have been denied their full rights and privileges. For that reason, I hope that the whole House will welcome the publication of the White Paper, "Promoting disabled people's rights". Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that rapid progress on those issues will be a high priority, thus fulfilling the Government's commitment to creating a society of opportunity for all our citizens?

The Prime Minister: I can give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks. Yesterday, we published a White Paper

setting out our proposals for the role and functions of the Disability Rights Commission, to which we are committed. The establishment of the commission should be seen alongside the other measures that we have taken to help those disabled people who want to work to get off benefit and into work. Contrary to Conservative Members, we believe that it is right to give those disabled people the chance to get off benefit and into work if they wish to take it. Alongside the Disability Rights Commission, it offers a far better deal for the disabled than was ever offered by the previous Government.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: We now know from the comprehensive spending review that the cost of cutting numbers in primary school classes will be £620 million, while the saving from abolishing the assisted places scheme will be only £100 million by the relevant time. Is it not time that the Government dropped the pretence that abolishing assisted places had anything to do with meeting new Labour pledges, but everything to do with fanning true Labour prejudice?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is one of the "wants more money" ones. He want more money and would spend another £100 million on assisted places. It is difficult to keep up with Conservative Members.
Abolishing assisted places was right for two reasons. First, I do not think that it is right for the state to subsidise private education; people are entitled to pay for it if that is what they want. Secondly, we have been able to make a start because of the £100 million. From this September, 100,000 young people—five, six and seven-year-olds—will be taught in classes under 30 who, without our policy, would not be. We developed that policy. It is clear from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and of the Leader of the Opposition that they would oppose it. I hope that the parents of those 100,000 children know that.

Ms Linda Perham: As the Prime Minister knows, I am a campaigner with Age Concern on age discrimination. Would he like to tell the House what the Government have done to improve the lot of older people—unlike the Conservative party, which has started to sack its older staff? Surely even Asda does better than that.

The Prime Minister: We do not believe in sacking people on the grounds of their age. I am sorry that the Conservative party has done so—I should have thought that it could do with some wiser heads round the place. We have announced our extra help for pensioners on low incomes and for all pensioners with their fuel bills, free eye tests and concessionary travel. It is a start in helping not only the poorest pensioners, but all elderly people. The type of society that we want to see is one in which retired people are given the chances and benefits to which anyone who has paid their taxes throughout their life and done their work should be entitled. Under this Government, they are getting those chances.

Points of Order

Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is today reported as saying that the Department of Trade and Industry permanent secretary is engaged in a "coup" against him, and that civil servants have "sabotaged" his work. I have given notice to the Minister of my intention to raise the matter as a point of order, but I understand that there is a meeting of DTI Ministers today in London.
Have you, Madam Speaker, received notice from the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs of a statement about the total breakdown of trust between the Minister and his civil servants? The President of the Board of Trade has recognised that it is a matter for the House, as she is reported as saying that,
if the matter was raised by Opposition MPs, she would be forced to defend her civil servants and denounce
the Minister's remarks.
The matter is now public. Where is the President of the Board of Trade? Will she apologise publicly for the action of her Minister? It is an issue of ministerial accountability and of good manners. Civil servants do not have rights of audience. I submit that the matter is one for the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you please advise the House what protection is available for officials and civil servants when they are so publicly and viciously attacked by a Minister in their own Department? Furthermore, what trust can the House have in replies that we receive to our parliamentary questions and in debates when a Department is at war with itself—with Ministers set against civil servants and vice versa? Surely it is a matter that must be cleared up very promptly, so that our confidence in the system of parliamentary questions and accountability can be restored.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Standing Committee that recently considered the Competition Bill, I was aware that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was frequently unable adequately to answer the points raised in that Committee's debates.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order or matter for me. I shall reply to the other points.

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the point of order?

Mr. Salmond: It is another aspect.

Madam Speaker: Let me first deal with the point of order. I tell the hon. Member for Christchurch

(Mr. Chope) and the House that I have not seen the report to which he referred. He asked whether I have been informed that a Minister is to make a statement. I have no information that any Minister is about to make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is another side to the matter. Last week, there was a report in the press naming the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the Minister of State, Scottish Office as having been voted by civil servants the worst Ministers in the Government. It is therefore not true that there was not a civil service opinion in the matter.

Madam Speaker: Sometimes journalists never spoil a good story with the facts.

BILL PRESENTED

PET OWNERSHIP (RESIDENTIAL AND SHELTERED ACCOMMODATION)

Burstow presented a Bill to require local authorities to formulate policies to enable people in certain types of accommodation to keep pets; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 236].

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that, in the hurly-burly of the House, there needs to be some flexibility, but I came to Prime Minister's questions to hear the Prime Minister questioned, yet in whole chunks of it, he was asking questions and refusing to answer. Is that appropriate, and is it in order?

Madam Speaker: This is a very robust House, and hon. Members on both sides have to discipline themselves so that we hear the questions that are put and the answers. [Interruption.] Order. I have been asked a question, and hon. Members must let me answer. It is extremely difficult for me, as Speaker, to keep all hon. Members under control. Some of them are noisier than others—and I know who they are. There are occasions when I point them out, and I shall send them out of the Chamber if this goes on during Question Time. There are people outside this House who want to hear Prime Minister's Question Time, and it is up to hon. Members to allow them to do so.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have given a ruling, so we cannot have another point of order on it.

Flood Warnings (Vulnerable Properties)

Ms Sally Keeble: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a system of advance warnings whereby people who buy or rent homes, stay in hotels, or rent or pitch caravans or tents in flood plains are informed of the risks; and for connected purposes.
The Bill arises directly out of the Easter floods and the terrible events that many hon. Members will have seen in their constituencies. People were caught in their homes by the rising flood waters, without warning and without even having been aware that they were at risk of flooding. Hundreds of holidaymakers were airlifted from flooded camp sites. Northampton was worst hit, but no one who saw the consequences of the floods or spoke to the victims would want to leave people so vulnerable ever again.
During the ensuing investigations, it became clear that existing provisions to protect and especially to forewarn people of flood risks were completely inadequate. If a developer wants to build new houses in flood plains and the Environment Agency—as the public watchdog on flooding issues—advises against, the local authority can still give approval for the building to go ahead. The new home owners get no warning of the risks until the flood waters come under their front doors. There is no identification of places where people are likely to be especially at risk, such as camp sites, which are often near rivers so that people can enjoy the scenery and water sports. They are not required to have emergency plans to deal with floods or to warn holidaymakers.
The Bill aims to contribute towards plugging some of the gaps. It sets out provisions to ensure that, if developers build new homes in flood plains where there is a risk of flooding, information about the risks is placed on the files of the properties, so that it shows up in local authority searches. It is a substantial measure, as some 4 million new homes will be built in the coming years, and many could well be in flood plains.
The Bill also provides for owners of caravan parks and camp sites that are in flood plains to have evacuation plans, and to make sure that people staying on their property know about the risks and know what to do if there is a flood. For holiday homes at risk of flooding, including mobile homes, there is a requirement to put a flood risk plaque in the property—rather like the fire alarm warnings in many hotels rooms.
For people selling older properties, there is a requirement to disclose to the buyer any history of flooding. That should ensure that people moving into the property know about the risks, without producing a bureaucratic paper chase. For example, some 125 sq km of London is in a flood plain, but very few homes have experienced flooding. To make everyone in inner London check with the Environment Agency about the level of flood risk would produce a complete bureaucratic nightmare, and would achieve nothing, except possibly a property blight.
After the floods in Northampton, I gave a lift home to some young people who had been rescued by boat from a mobile home. The first they knew about the floods was

when they opened the front door and found water lapping on the doorstep. They had no way of getting help, and they did not know what to do. For many people, the instinct might be to try to wade through the water to safety, but that would probably be the wrong thing to do, because I am told that flood waters have strong undercurrents and are particularly dangerous. I do not want other people, old or young, to be put in such danger. The Bill would help to prevent that.
Northampton was not the only place to suffer from the floods. People in many other constituencies also suffered, and their Members of Parliament have been of great help in bringing forward the Bill. In addition to the supporters named, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), for Kettering (Mr. Sawford), for Corby (Mr. Hope), for Worcester (Mr. Foster), for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) for their support in developing the plans.
I also pay tribute to the Environment Agency, for its support and comments on the proposals, to the Caravan Club, for helping to ensure that the provisions were practical and workable, and to the staff of the Public Bill Office, who have provided important assistance.
Many people want to live close to rivers, and many choose to spend their holidays there for scenery or water sports. The Bill would ensure that they were still able to make such a choice, but it would be an informed choice. They could receive the information they needed to ensure that they could get their ideal home or holiday, but would know the risks, and could make arrangements to protect themselves and their families.
Many of us will never forget the terrible scenes at Easter and many members of the public still have to live with the consequences. The Bill would be a small step towards ensuring that the lessons of the floods were learnt and that people would not be left so vulnerable and exposed to risk again.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Tony Clarke, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Mrs. Diana Organ, Mr. Patrick Hall, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Brian White, Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mr. John Healey, Mr. Paul Keetch and Gillian Merron.

FLOOD WARNINGS (VULNERABLE PROPERTIES)

Ms Sally Keeble accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a system of advance warnings whereby people who buy or rent homes, stay in hotels, or rent or pitch caravans or tents in flood plains are informed of the risks; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 November, and to be printed [Bill 237].

Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments to the Bill be considered in the following order, namely: No. 125; No. 33; Remaining Amendments (other than Nos. 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 16, 18, 20 to 22, 27, 49 and 82); Nos. 49 and 82; Nos. 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20 to 22; No. 27.— [Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Lords amendments considered.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 125, after clause 112, to insert the following new clause—Welsh Administration Ombudsman—
.—(1) There shall be an office of Welsh Administration Ombudsman or Ombwdsmon Gweinyddiaeth Cymru.
(2) Schedule (Welsh Administration Ombudsman) (which makes provision about the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and, in particular, enables him to investigate administrative action taken by the Assembly and certain other public bodies in Wales in response to complaints claiming maladministration) has effect.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 26, 69, 126, 144, 146, 155, 169, 186, 187, 190, 192, 194, 195, 199, 201, 203, 207 and 210.

Mr. Griffiths: The National Assembly for Wales will be a new, open and accountable form of government for Wales. The Assembly will enable the voice of the people of Wales to be heard at last, through the representatives they elect through the ballot box next May.
The creation of the office of the Welsh Administration ombudsman will ensure that that voice is not only heard, but listened to. The ombudsman will be a strong and independent figure, able to call the Assembly and other public bodies in Wales to task when needed.
The ombudsman will have jurisdiction over a range of non-departmental public bodies and the Assembly. However, the functions of some bodies, such as the Environment Agency, extend both sides of the border. We are not suggesting that the ombudsman should have jurisdiction over those functions of the Environment Agency that relate to England, but only, like the Assembly, over those functions relating to Wales.
The parliamentary commissioner currently has jurisdiction over certain executive non-departmental public bodies in Wales. Those will fall to the Welsh ombudsman to investigate. We are giving the Assembly powers by order to add the other bodies to the ombudsman's jurisdiction. If the Assembly is given responsibilities in new areas in which non-departmental public bodies operate, those too could be brought within the ombudsman's jurisdiction.
We have also made provision to extend the jurisdiction of the health service commissioner for Wales to cover the Assembly's exercise of its health functions. Perhaps I might outline the way in which the ombudsman will operate.
If an individual or body is aggrieved as a consequence of alleged maladministration, it will be open to them to make a complaint to the ombudsman, who will have effective powers to investigate such allegations. Complainants will be able to go direct to the ombudsman if they wish, rather than via their Assembly Member. That mirrors the position between the health service and local government.
The outcome of the investigations will be reported to all concerned, including the complainant, any Assembly Member who assisted the complainant in submitting the allegation, and the individual against whom—or the body against which—the allegations have been made. It will also be reported to the Assembly First Secretary.
If such allegations are upheld, the body must notify the ombudsman within three months of the actions that it proposes will remedy the matter. If no response, or an inadequate response, is forthcoming, the ombudsman may recommend in a further report what action is to be taken. If the Assembly is the subject of the further report, the amendments provide that the Assembly First Secretary must lay the report before the Assembly and give notice of a motion that the recommendations be approved.
The amendments provide a strong and effective means for pursuing complaints against the Assembly and public bodies in Wales. I might add that the approach has the full support of the parliamentary commissioner. As I said earlier, the ombudsman's jurisdiction will extend only as far as the exercise of functions of the Assembly or a public body in Wales. The office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration already has jurisdiction over matters outside Wales, and will retain jurisdiction over matters in Wales outside the Assembly's remit. The functions of the two offices will therefore not overlap.
The amendments are important, and substantially improve the Bill. The Government tabled them in response to points made by hon. Members on Report. I hope that they will be widely supported.

Mr. Nigel Evans: It is good to have the Bill back from the other place. It has been so long since we have been able to speak on these measures, I was almost having withdrawal symptoms. I am sure that all hon. Members share that sentiment.
We welcome the creation of the wholly separate position of the Welsh Administration ombudsman. It was requested during earlier proceedings. If anything, it proves how useful a revising chamber can be in considering what we say and giving the Government the chance to amend legislation, as they have admirably in many parts of the Bill.
We welcome the fact that individuals will be able to take their complaints to the Welsh Administration ombudsman without the need to go through their Assembly Member—after, of course, ensuring that all the other avenues open to members of the public have been exhausted.
We welcome the clear procedure on allowing bodies against which a complaint has been made a strict three-month time limit to respond. If the response is late or insufficient, the ombudsman has the power to make a further report. In that report, he can make recommendations on what action should be taken. Will the Minister clarify the course of action to ensure proper redress if no action, or insufficient action, is taken following the ombudsman's second report?
The range of bodies over which the Welsh Administration ombudsman will be responsible is extensive. Although I welcome that, I have one or two concerns.
First, the time that people will have to wait before receiving a full response to their complaint must be kept to a minimum. The area of responsibility is now wide, and one can imagine all sorts of complaints coming to the ombudsman, especially if his existence is made well known. That is not a plea for the Minister to spend a six-figure sum advertising the fact that the new position exists, so that everybody knows how to get in touch with the ombudsman. However, we are keen to see some form of information campaign to ensure that members of the public, through their local libraries and other organisations, know that the Welsh Administration ombudsman will be there, and how to use that person.
I shall not prejudge the number of complaints that the Welsh Administration ombudsman will receive, but there could be many, and we need to know that he will have sufficient staff to handle them all. There is provision in the Bill to consider the staffing arrangements, but we need to know that, when the complaints start coming in, they will be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible.
My second concern is connected with the first. What percentage of the cost will be taken from its current budgetary position and added to the Welsh block? Will any additional costs be taken from within the current block budget? Obviously, if any of the money comes from within the block, that money will not be available to spend elsewhere. I know that discussions are now taking place with the Welsh Office about where the money will come from.
We understand that the ombudsman will have the power to repay, from time to time, money spent by a complainant—expenses and so on. It is difficult to estimate now how much money that will entail, but we need some assurance from the Minister that sufficient money will be made available from elsewhere and added to the Welsh block, so that none of it has to come from front-line services.
The health service commissioner will be able to look into
a failure in a service provided by the Assembly in the exercise of a function of the Assembly relating to the National Health Service
and also
a failure by the Assembly to provide a service the provision of which is an Assembly health service function".
He could therefore be extremely busy looking into the areas of the NHS relevant to the powers of the Assembly.
Many complaints may be related, through the health service commissioner, to action taken before the Assembly came into being. I am looking for clarification of that, too. We know that the Minister is involved in an enormous consultation process about the reorganisation of the trusts. We heard about that during Welsh Questions today. Adjournment debates have also been held about it, and many questions have been tabled.
My question, therefore, is: is it not rather unfair to rush all that through? After all, the Minister's party believes that devolution is its Government's flagship legislation. Labour Members have trumpeted it all—so is it not right that the Assembly should have an opportunity to consider

the proposals, especially if the health service commissioner will thereafter have questions and complaints put to him?
Why does the Minister have to rush everything through and get it on the statute book by 1 April, a few weeks before the Assembly comes into being? Has he considered—if not, I ask him to do so—carrying on with his investigations, but passing all the information to the Assembly, so that its members can make the recommendations? If the Government believe in devolution, surely it is up to the Assembly members to examine health provision in Wales and make the recommendations.
I have asked the Minister a few questions, and I hope that he will be able to reassure me about at least some of the points that I have raised.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the changes to the Bill. The Minister was kind enough to say that the Government were responding to representations made on Report, and Plaid Cymru's new clause about an ombudsman for Wales was relevant in that context, so we are glad that the Government have moved in that direction.
However, there are one or two areas of uncertainty concerning how things will work out, especially with regard to the possible overlap between the functions of the ombudsman relating to the National Assembly for Wales and those of the central Government ombudsman. When the Minister opened the debate, he tried to reassure the House that there should be no overlap, but I wonder what the position will be when there are orders that can be exercised either by a Secretary of State in London, who is a member of the British Government, or by the Assembly.
If people have a grievance because neither the Secretary of State nor the Assembly has fulfilled their responsibilities, which either of them may exercise, for undertaking actions by order—we shall hear examples of those later—where should they seek redress? Will the Minister respond to that question when he closes this short debate?
Secondly, there is a general question as to the seriousness with which the National Assembly will regard the work and reports of the ombudsmen. The complaints that constituents frequently make, whether they relate to the local government ombudsmen—which are, perhaps, more common—or the central Government ombudsman, are that, although their case was investigated, nothing happened. They sought redress and changes in policy following an investigation, and sometimes a positive report by an ombudsman, but there was not an adequate mechanism to ensure that such changes took place.
Thirdly, I hope that there will be a regular debate in the National Assembly, not only about specific complaints but about the general patterns of complaints in the ombudsman's reports. The National Assembly must take those on board regularly, not only when it is kicked hard enough to make it sit up and take notice.
Having made those three points, I welcome the change to the Bill. It builds in an additional safeguard for citizens, and I am glad to support the amendment.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Liberal Democrats also welcome the amendment. Ombudsmen


have been around since 1967, and the local government ombudsmen were created in 1974. People with a grievance against a public body are now necessarily entitled to have their complaint investigated by an independent person at no cost to the complainant. The success of that principle is demonstrated by the extension of the concept of ombudsmen to the private sector, to include organisations such as banks, building societies and insurance companies.
We welcome the fact that people will be able to make their complaints directly to the Welsh Administration ombudsman. The need to go through a councillor before making a complaint reduces the number of people using the service. That stipulation was removed in 1988, and the number of complaints increased significantly. That shows that a requirement to submit a complaint via an elected member would cause a barrier to many potential complainants. However, complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman still have to be made through a Member of Parliament. That may deter some people from using that service.
It is essential that the ombudsman is adequately resourced to allow complaints to be investigated thoroughly and without undue delay. Otherwise, encouragement to use the system would be an own goal.
We are pleased that some of the problems encountered by other ombudsmen have been taken on board by the Government. The Welsh Assembly will be able to amend the list of bodies within the jurisdiction of the WAO, which is welcome. The local government ombudsmen have been unable to deal with complaints about newly created bodies that should logically fall within their jurisdiction, but that will not be a problem for the WAO.
The WAO will have stronger powers following the publication of a further report against the Assembly. I understand that, if the Assembly is subject to a further report, the First Secretary must lay the report before the Assembly and give notice of motion that its recommendations be approved. I should be grateful for confirmation of that in the Minister's closing remarks.

4 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths: I shall deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Welsh ombudsman will not have formal enforcement powers, but if the Assembly fails to comply, that will be because it has formally and publicly rejected a motion put down by the First Secretary to approve the ombudsman's recommendations. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). The Assembly will have publicly to reject the motion. Ever the optimist, I do not think it likely that the Welsh Assembly would reject a motion relating to the recommendations of the Welsh ombudsman.
There will be a transfer from the Cabinet Office vote to the Welsh block to cover the costs of the office; but if the Welsh ombudsman is the same person as the parliamentary ombudsman, no salary will be payable—not that I would want that to influence the way in which we make progress.
Once the office has been created, all NHS complaints will go to the Welsh ombudsman. Up to that point, they will have been dealt with by the health service ombudsman. Therefore, we do not want to muddy the waters; it is the date that will make the difference.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley may think that the Government have rushed the NHS reconfiguration, but considering that the process will have taken almost two years to complete, during which there has been wide consultation in Wales, it would be inappropriate to hold up the possibility of saving some £7 million a year, which will go from administration into health care, to await decisions from the Assembly. The Assembly will thank us for going ahead with these changes, so that it has additional money to allocate to the health service in Wales.

Mr. Evans: Lack of speed is not one of the allegations that I would throw at the Welsh Office, but we are talking about only a few weeks. I understand what the Minister says about the savings that may occur as a result of the reconfiguration, but the Administration may not welcome the changes that the Minister may then be making, and it would have to overhaul some of them, which at the end of the day may be more expensive.
Therefore, would it not be better to wait a few weeks until the Assembly is up and running, bring it into the consultation procedure, and convince it that the changes that the Minister wants to make are the right ones, but allow the Assembly to have its say? In a spirit of inclusiveness—as someone who did not parade the wonders of devolution, that is fairly new to me—I am now saying that we should let the Assembly have its say.

Mr. Griffiths: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not quite got to grips with all that this will mean. It is not a question of hanging on for only a few weeks. We shall have been consulting the Welsh people for three months on the actual proposals. Anyone who has expressed a desire to stand for the Assembly will have had three months, and will still have two months in which to make observations on the trusts reconfiguration proposals. We want the new trusts to be well prepared on 1 April, so they will have five to six months to prepare themselves for the new regime and order of the day. To hold everything up until next April means holding things up not for a few weeks but for six or seven months.
We have already spent more than a year consulting on the principle and practice of the new trusts, so I do not think that anyone would thank us for hanging on much longer and creating all sorts of uncertainties in the health service. As I have said before in the House, some people have told me that I have moved too quickly, others have told me that I have moved too slowly, and others still have said that I have moved both too quickly and too slowly. I think that we have got it about right.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does not my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about a substantial point? If the Assembly is to be the all-singing, all-dancing body that it has been promoted as over the past year, surely it would be better to have a delay of five or six months to allow the new fount of democracy to make a decision than to make any decision now. I presume that he will not deny that the Assembly will have the right immediately to overthrow any decision that he may take towards the end of the year.
I find it most peculiar that the Welsh Office is advertising for chairmen for the new trusts while the proposals are still out to consultation. If the Welsh Office has already decided what the new configuration will be, why bother to consult on it? The Assembly will contain a corpus of informed opinion, so it will be ready to make a political decision. I should have thought that waiting a few months for the 60 brains to be brought together in the new Assembly would be far more democratic, inclusive and of benefit to the people.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend does justice neither to himself nor to his constituents, who have made vigorous representations to me about the proposals on NHS reconfiguration. I can only repeat that the consultation has been very wide and detailed. Anyone who is thinking of standing for the Assembly could already have made a contribution to that consultation process.
Staff in the health service want us to come to some decisions on the proposals. If we do not, those decisions will have to wait longer than six or seven months, as the Assembly will not be able to decide to do everything completely differently; it, too, would have to consult properly on any changes that it wanted to make. I think that everyone in Wales—both those working in the health service and those being cared for by it—will want us to save money in administration so that we can spend more on health care. Moreover, I am sure that the Welsh ombudsman will be able to deal very satisfactorily with any problems in the health service.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned joint orders and the overlap of jurisdictions between different ombudsmen. Schedule 9 provides for consultation and co-operation between ombudsmen, so that any overlap can be sorted out by agreement. If the ombudsmen decided that the complaint was equally important to their activities—if they felt that neither the Minister of the Crown nor the Assembly had acted appropriately, or that they should investigate allegations—they could work together to deal with the issue.
I think that I have covered all the points raised, so I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 13, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (Transfer etc. of functions: further provisions) (which makes further provision about the transfer etc. of functions by Order in Council under this section) has effect.")

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 36, 45, 54, 151, 157, 158, 161 to 163, 168 and 170.

Mr. Griffiths: The amendments clarify what functions the Assembly may be given in England in respect of the sea and in respect of cross-border bodies—that is, bodies whose activities relate to Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), signalled on Report on 25 March the intention to table in another place amendments relating to clause 23. He undertook that any such amendments would not enable the transfer order to give the Assembly more functions in England than was possible under clause 23, and that they would maintain the mechanisms that are in the Bill in respect of the Assembly's functions in England. We have kept to that undertaking.
The principal amendments are No. 34, which deletes clause 23; No. 170, which reproduces many of its provisions in a new schedule; and No. 157, which defines "Wales" as including the territorial sea adjacent to Wales. I propose to concentrate my remarks on the significant changes made by those amendments.
Paragraph 3 of the new schedule limits the range of functions that the Assembly can be given in parts of England that adjoin Wales. Previously, the Bill had allowed potentially any function to be given to the Assembly in respect of a cross-border area; however, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made clear on Report, we intend to transfer such functions to the Assembly only in respect of rivers and other water-related matters. The term "rivers" encompasses the functions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State currently exercises in respect of flood defence and navigation on rivers. The amendment also makes it clear that the Assembly can be given functions only in parts of England that adjoin Wales, and only if the Assembly is given the equivalent functions for the whole or part of Wales. That constitutes a significant narrowing compared to the approach in clause 23(6)(c) and I hope that the House will agree that the clarification is welcome.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I want to get an assurance from him. He has got to paragraph 3, but is going to explain paragraph 2 of the schedule?

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that I shall cover that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will remind me of it, if it appears that I am not going to do as he asks.
I am sure that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will find the amendment particularly helpful in demolishing, once and for all, the suggestion that the Assembly would have responsibility for schools in parts of Herefordshire. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had already dealt with that point on Report on 25 March—Hansard column 645, if the hon. Gentleman wants to check—but the amendment puts the matter beyond any doubt.
Amendment No. 157 provides that:
'Wales' includes the sea adjacent to Wales out as far as the seaward boundary of the territorial sea,
which extends 12 nautical miles from the coast. That definition of Wales will apply for all the purposes of the Bill. One effect is that the Assembly may be given ministerial functions only in respect of the territorial sea.
Two other provisions flow from that definition of Wales. First, amendment No. 158 provides an order-making power to determine any boundary between the parts of the sea that areto be treated as adjacent to Wales and those that are not. Amendment No. 151 provides for such an order to be subject to the affirmative


resolution procedure. That power is necessary in the case of the Dee and Severn estuaries and the Bristol channel, where the coast of Wales lies less than 24 nautical miles from the coast of England.
Secondly, paragraph 4 of the new schedule, which is inserted by amendment No. 170, provides that the transfer order may require a Minister of the Crown to consult the Assembly about certain functions essentially to do with the disposal and abandonment of oil and gas installations in the sea adjacent to the territorial sea—that is, beyond the 12-mile limit. There is a similar order-making power to define the boundaries of "Welsh controlled waters" for the purposes of that paragraph.
Paragraph 3 makes it clear that an order under clause 22 may give the Assembly functions in respect of a range of cross-border bodies as diverse as the Environment Agency, Audit Commission, Intervention Board and the North West and North Wales sea fisheries committee, to give just a few examples. The previous definition in clause 23(6)(d) would not have allowed the Assembly to inherit many of the functions that my right hon. Friend currently exercises, and the amendment corrects that oversight.
In the light of the further consideration that we have given to the Assembly's functions, it has become apparent that there are a limited number of functions that it will exercise in Wales but whose principal effect may be felt in England. The effect could take the form of a serious adverse impact on water resources, the water supply or the quality of water in England, and relates to matters such as abstractions from, and discharges into, rivers that flow across the border. We believe that, in recognition of the interests of people living in England who may be affected by the Assembly's decisions in Wales, there should be a limited override power allowing the Secretary of State to intervene and to take certain decisions in place of the Assembly.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Why does the Minister think that the Secretary of State is likely to behave more responsibly than the Assembly?

Mr. Griffiths: It is not an issue of responsibility, because I am sure that the Assembly, the Secretary of State for Wales and other Secretaries of State with responsibilities in England whose actions might affect Wales will behave very responsibly. It is a cross-border issue involving consultation at an English level. In the cases that I have described, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have some responsibility in this matter.

Mr. Wigley: In order to ensure that we understand him correctly, will the Minister spell out his intentions in respect of these changes? Is he really saying that we will give the Secretary of State—whose political colour may be different from that of the Government of the Assembly—a veto over the Assembly when it comes to decisions about abstracting water from rivers in Wales in order to supply the industrial needs of cities in England? Is that what the Government are offering in the

amendment? Has the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions turned over Welsh Office Ministers to that extent?

Mr. Griffiths: The issue has absolutely nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman's question. It is a matter of approaching the matter sensibly.
The Environment Agency could also have some input. The Assembly will have to consider issues on the Welsh side of the border, and the Secretary of State will consider those on the English side. For example, the Environment Agency would have something to say if a decision had adverse effects on the Welsh or English sides of the border. There can be no question of any action taken by the Secretary of State in relation to England having a detrimental effect on the Welsh side of the border. It is a question of balancing these matters, and that is provided for in paragraph 6 of the new schedule. The override power can apply to functions in parts of two named Acts only, and, in due course, the transfer orders will set out our proposals for the precise areas where the override power will be available.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the right hon. Gentleman about a number of those issues, and I am sure that he will want to consider that correspondence. Certain matters relating to abstraction—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred specifically—will not be covered by this provision; responsibility will remain with Welsh bodies. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the legislation. Abstraction is dealt with under part II of the Water Resources Act 1991, and is excluded from the override provisions. I give him an absolute assurance on that point.
On the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), paragraph 2 of the new schedule is already covered by clause 23(6)(a). It is not new. The purpose is to allow the Assembly to be given responsibility for any function that relates to the Welsh language and culture, whether inside or outside Wales—for example, the power to make grants to education authorities for Welsh language teaching under the Education Act 1996. We propose that the Assembly should have that power for Wales and England.
Irrespective of the override power, as a matter of administrative law the Assembly will have to take account of the wider impact of its decisions across a range of environmental functions, including any impact that may be felt in England.
I have just been reminded that part II of the Water Resources Act was included in the override power, although it says explicitly—this is where my confusion arose—that applications will not be a matter for Ministers, but will be dealt with my the Environment Agency. Ministers would participate in the process only if an application were rejected and was subject to an appeal.
I hope that, with all those matters taken into consideration, the House will be able to agree to the amendment.

Mr. Dafis: Before I deal with the amendment, I should like to say a word about amendment No. 157, which defines the maritime boundary of Wales. Will the Minister comment on the implications of that definition and on the Assembly's powers vis-a-vis the effects of pollution arising from oil and gas exploration and extraction both


inside and beyond the area defined as being within Welsh territorial waters? Does he agree that, despite its limited powers in that area, the Assembly will need to develop a comprehensive energy strategy for Wales, and that it will have a lively interest in oil and gas exploration in the seas off Wales? It may prefer alternative developments, such as the large-scale offshore wind technology advocated by Greenpeace.
The Department of Trade and Industry, which licenses oil and gas exploration and exploitation, will have to listen seriously to the Assembly's opinion and have regard to its views about an appropriate energy strategy for Wales and its concerns about the environment.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman just referred to Welsh territorial waters. The Bill talks about territorial waters "adjacent to Wales"—in other words, British territorial waters. Is he suggesting that the Assembly should be responsible for all the acts relating to those territorial waters?

Mr. Dafis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has derived some kind of pleasure from picking up on a small point of definition. The people of Wales regard the seas off the Welsh coasts as being a part of Wales that impinges on their welfare and interests. As I understand it, the amendment is about defining where Wales comes to an end in the sea. [Laughter.] Indeed. I hope that the Minister will address the issues that I have raised on energy and the development of energy policy.
In respect of Lords amendment No. 170, the concern is that the Assembly would be constrained in its ability to ensure the implementation of what might be described as a sustainable water strategy for Wales. Surely it will need to consider that because water is important for environmental policy and vital for economic development policy, both of which come within a sustainable development policy.
Wales is richly endowed with invaluable water resources. I do not need to tell hon. Members that water is becoming increasingly important in the United Kingdom and globally. We know that there is an impending significant, and perhaps serious, water shortage in certain parts of the United Kingdom arising from the increasing use of water in development and in agriculture as well as in industry. Demand and consumption are rising, and there is the whole question of climate change.
I emphasise that thought is currently being given to the large-scale transfer of water resources from various parts of the United Kingdom to areas that will suffer water shortages. That certainly includes Wales, so new reservoirs and impounding water will be on the agenda within the next 10 to 15 years. The availability of water is also relevant to the location of economic activity, and to where it is appropriate to locate certain industries and to grow certain agricultural crops. Wales should be able to benefit from its plentiful supply of water and, rather than exporting water as a raw material, value would be added to water in Wales.
We need to get the matter clear now and hear the Minister's view: would the Assembly have to approve any transfer of water, which there might have to be in certain circumstances? Surely the Assembly would have to approve such a transfer. It simply would not be acceptable

for the Secretary of State to be able to override it on the grounds in Lords amendment No. 170 and especially paragraph 6(1) of the new schedule.
The Minister referred to the Secretary of State's letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on this matter. The Secretary of State said:
The compulsory purchase and compulsory works powers needed to build a new reservoir are in part VI of the Water Industries Act 1991 and the override power of the Secretary of State therefore would not permit intervention.
However, the amendment refers not to the Water Industries Act 1991, but to the Water Resources Act 1991, part VII of which applies to compulsory purchase in respect of the laying of pipes. That is relevant to reservoirs and water transfers, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
There seems to be confusion between the two 1991 Acts. Part II of the Water Resources Act 1991 concerns abstraction licences, although I do not know whether subsequent legislation and amendment means that the provisions have been shifted to other parts of that Act. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) shakes his head, which is a great comfort to me—a great discomfort, I should say. We need satisfactory clarification of these matters. If we do not receive it, we shall be obliged to divide the House.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Let me take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis). One of his simpler points involved Lords amendment No. 157, and its definition of Wales as including
the sea…as far as the…boundary of the territorial sea".
We welcome that definition, but it would not allow the Assembly to influence decisions on oil explorations more than 12 miles offshore.
We all know of the grid in the Irish sea where there are possibilities of drilling—and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, opportunities for pollution, which we would be unable to prevent. The Assembly could debate such an issue under the general provisions of the Bill, but it could not have a formal say in regard to, for example, a planning application for oil exploration just 13 miles off the Welsh coast. That is worrying, and I should like to know how the Government propose to deal with it.
Paragraph 4 of the new schedule proposed in Lords amendment No. 170 provides for the Assembly to be consulted about the abandonment of oil and gas installations—a very topical subject—but not about new explorations. Many members of the Assembly would not consider that right.
4.30 pm
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the new schedule is the provision in paragraph 6 that allows the Secretary of State to overrule the Assembly on matters of water supply and quality if the exercise of a function in that regard might have a "serious adverse impact" in England. We consider that far too wide-ranging. It would allow the Secretary of State to go against the Assembly's opinion and to allow, for example, water extraction from Welsh rivers for use in England.
There is clearly a need for effective water management between England and Wales, and there may be a need for the transfer of water from Wales to some parts of England


that have less water, but we think it essential for that to take place with the permission of the Assembly, rather than at the will of the Secretary of State.
As a constituency Member, I am particularly interested in that aspect. The River Wye and the River Usk flow through my constituency, and there is a huge issue of compensatory flow at times of water shortage. Moreover, Welsh Water is putting many more boreholes in both river valleys so that water can be extracted for public consumption. The problem is that that lowers the river levels, and has a grave ecological effect on the rivers. If we are to be asked for more abstraction for England without the Assembly's being able to have an impact on decisions, we shall be in considerable trouble.
The question has arisen in the past of the supply of water from the Elan valley, and the agreement that was struck between Welsh Water and Severn Trent plc for the supply of water to the midlands. That was achieved, but it was controversial at the time. I have in my house plans made 100 years ago—which I have discussed with a neighbour—for a water grid to supply southern England, which is now being talked about again. The plans are very sophisticated, even by today's standards. They allow for the damming of the River Irfon, just above Builth Wells, for piped water to go into Llangors lake, near where I live, for the level of the lake to be raised considerably and for water to flow down the Usk and into the Thames system down to Staines. It is all there on paper, and I am sure that it could be resuscitated.
It would be a disgrace if the Welsh Assembly could not influence such activity, but it could happen within the next 10 years. We must have safeguards, enabling the Assembly to influence water abstraction from Wales for use elsewhere. I feel very strongly about the matter.

Mr. Rogers: What aspect would the Assembly want to influence—the engineering side, the projects side or just the costs side?

Mr. Livsey: I do not think that the House would want me to go into a treatise on construction. Matters of principle must be considered, such as the issue of a way-leave for pipes that may cross land but from which no one in Wales would benefit.
We welcome the fact that the Assembly has a role in the development of the Welsh language and culture within and outside Wales. During the referendum campaign, I discovered that there are 400,000 Welsh speakers in England and 500,000 in Wales. That is a fascinating statistic. The Assembly should provide an excellent opportunity for the Welsh language and culture to be given appropriate priority, and I am sure that they will flourish in the future.
The other provisions of the new schedule, especially those that provide clarification, are welcome. However, the possibility of the Secretary of State overruling the Assembly on water issues is a very serious matter.

Mr. Rowlands: This is an important and substantial debate. It is a genuine attempt to limit and narrow the issues that were raised in earlier debates. Nevertheless, it has raised other issues, such the problem of water which was mentioned by the previous two speakers. I Want to

draw attention to the potential confusion that could arise, and the potential for friction between the Assembly and Government Departments. It is in the common interest of everyone who wants devolution to work to deal with the potential areas of friction and dispute in these clauses.
The report of the debates on these amendments in the other place on 2 June are to be found at columns 225 and 231–36 of the House of Lords Hansard. Those debates show the wide-ranging nature of the provisions in the schedule, despite the Minister's attempts to limit them. The schedule contains wide and sweeping powers.
The new schedule refers to transfers of functions. We have had a continuing debate on one aspect of this issue, about which we are still no clearer. In the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn said that functions relating to animal health and food safety, including those under the Food Safety Act 1990, would be transferred to the Assembly. Therefore, the regulations that were used to ban beef on the bone will be a function of the Assembly.
Lord Williams referred to a joint responsibility with the Minister of Agriculture. I have asked this question many times, and I am still waiting for an answer. What will happen if there is a dispute between the Assembly and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Who will have the final say? Will the Minister of Agriculture have the power under the 1990 Act on an issue such as meat on the bone to override the strong wishes expressed by the Assembly, or will the Assembly's view prevail? The Bill does not contain a disputes procedure.
Before we let the provision through, we should be clear in our minds about who will have the final say if there is joint responsibility; otherwise, there will be considerable friction. Let us take the vivid example of exercising power under meat on the bone regulations. If the Assembly decided not to implement the ban, but MAFF wanted to apply the order, whose view would finally prevail if it was a joint responsibility? That is an extremely basic proposition, but it will test the model that we are trying to establish.
Amendment No. 170 relates to cross-border arrangements. Opposition Members put their finger on the provisions in paragraph 6 of the new schedule, which provide that "the Secretary of State"—not the Secretary of State for Wales—or the relevant Minister will have overriding power. However, we are still in the dark. Paragraph 7(b) of the proposed new schedule states that
the function may be exercised by the Assembly only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, a Minister of the Crown.
There is a big difference between consultation and agreement. Consultation implies that one party has the right to override the other.
It is difficult to work out the issues that are covered by paragraph 7. Some orders might be for agreement and some could be subject to consultation. We should not rubber stamp such provisions. We should be given vivid illustrations and examples of the areas that would be subject to agreement and those that would be for consultation. Unless we are given those, we may be creating headaches for Ministers or for the Assembly. We must clarify cross-border issues and areas for which the Bill provides for joint responsibility. We must know who will have the final say and how disputes are to be settled. Without that information, there will be a recipe for potential conflict, and none of us wants that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn spoke about what he called water issues. His speech shows that the schedule also covers matters such as rent rebate subsidy and its impact on social security benefits. Lord Williams of Mostyn's explanation is contained in column 233 of Hansard and shows the consultation that has to take place with Ministers, especially the Secretary of State for Social Security, because of the ripple effect, if, for example, the Assembly grants a generous rent rebate subsidy and is willing to pay for it. What is the Government's position on rent subsidies? I do not remember thinking in Committee that the Assembly would have rent subsidy powers, but such powers are logical. They are lodged with local government and must be Assembly responsibilities of one sort or another. Lord Williams of Mostyn said:
In the longer term, we will consider providing for a separate rent rebate subsidy payable by a UK Minister similar to the current arrangements in Scotland.
I apologise for my ignorance, but I was not aware that our rent rebate subsidy system was different from the one in Scotland. As a result, there will be complications if the Assembly proceeds to exercise its duty, responsibility or power to be more generous, or less generous, on rent rebate subsidies. Lord Williams of Mostyn also observed:
However, such changes will need to be considered in the context of the Government's comprehensive spending review. This may reach conclusions that would entail amending the relevant provisions of the 1989 Act for both England and Wales. We would want to avoid cutting across the conclusions of that review by making changes to the 1989 Act only in respect of Wales. For that reason we are not making such amendments now."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 1998; Vol.590, c.234.]
We have now had the comprehensive spending review, so perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us what consequential amendments need to be made to the rent subsidy arrangements. That is an integral part of the issues that arise from the new schedule.
We all want the system to work. I read with great interest something that came through the post over the last day or so. It was Mr. Peter Hennessy's lecture to the Lloyds TSB forum. This is what he said about devolution—it is pertinent and rather well put:
The edifice of devolution is very largely constructed on the harmony model. But that desirable state of affairs cannot be guaranteed. Far from it.
If the harmony model survives, I can see that many of the issues and concerns that we are scratching at in our debate on the schedule may prove to be modest or minor. However, if the harmony model breaks down, the legislation must be robust enough to cope with that. I am not convinced that the complex and difficult wording of the schedule establishes a sufficiently robust model to deal with important demarcation disputes, possible boundary disputes and potential areas of conflict between the Assembly and the Government.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I am pleased to be called to speak in this important debate on Lords amendment No. 170. As hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, the powers of the Assembly will be curtailed in relation to powers of the Secretary of State—the Secretary of State will have some overriding powers—so it is right that we test some of the issues that have been aired by hon. Members.
I apologise to the Minister for not being here for his first few sentences, but I listened carefully to the remainder of his speech and I did not hear him referring to paragraph 5 and European matters. He will recall that on a number of occasions in Committee I asked questions about these issues. When he replies, will he deal with some of the points that arise from paragraph 5?
Paragraph 5 deals with two issues. The first is ensuring that any treaty obligations for the United Kingdom pertain in all parts of the UK, so in a devolved system we understand the need for sub-paragraph (a). The main issue relates to sub-paragraph (b), which refers to the powers that both the Assembly and the Secretary of State will have in implementing statutory instruments that flow from European directives. Who will have responsibility for passing the statutory instruments and who will have the ultimate sanction?
The list of statutory instruments covered by sub-paragraph (b) contain a number of important ones for Wales. I draw the Minister's attention to two areas where the Assembly might wish to differ from regulations in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. An example might be the hill livestock compensatory allowances. The Assembly may or may not want to enhance the payments to farmers. For the sake of argument, let us assume that they want to keep the amount currently paid to farmers, but want to distribute it in a different way. Let us assume that the Assembly wants to target the allowances differently, to ensure that farmers who really need them get them. Under sub-paragraph (b), the Assembly would be prevented from doing so unless the same provisions applied in other parts of the United Kingdom. That seems to be an unnecessary restriction.
The Minister will know that one of hon. Members' concerns about the dairy quota is how little quota is available for young farmers entering the industry. What if the Assembly wants to operate a siphon system to ensure that part of the quota is set aside for young farmers? Although such a system has been considered by many Select Committees, the Conservative Government always refused to accept one. If the Assembly wanted to go down that road, paragraph 5 would prevent it from doing so.
We are debating issues not of money but of principle. We are debating issues of how resources might be distributed in Wales differently from the way in which they are distributed in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will the Assembly be prevented by the provision from such activities? [Interruption.] What if the Welsh Assembly wants to innovate in matters covered by statutory instruments on equal pay or air quality standards? What if the Welsh Assembly wants to do different things—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. General conversations are breaking out throughout the Chamber. Hon. Members must listen to the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My question—I am sure that the Minister is aware of the point—is, what ability will the Assembly have to think afresh and to think through new ideas? Will the Assembly have simply to consider what is happening elsewhere? Will the Secretary of State simply override it?
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) put his finger on the question—who will have the final say? That is the important question. I hope that the Minister will assure us that, on the issues I have mentioned, the Assembly will have the final say.

Mr. Rogers: On many of those issues, neither the Assembly nor this place will have the final say. Many of the cross-border issues that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) mentioned, such as pollution, are covered by European legislation. European legislation will increasingly cover those issues. As for the Welsh Assembly being able to think afresh about those issues, it just will not happen.
I should like to return to the territorial waters issue. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said that I made a rather trivial point. The point was not trivial but most significant. Although the Assembly will have a say on oil exploration, mineral development and Celtic sea pollution, those matters are subject to international treaties signed by the United Kingdom Government. The Welsh Assembly will have to operate within those parameters. Unfortunately—this is where I have great sympathy for the three Plaid Cymru Members in the Chamber—the Assembly will not have legislative and tax-raising powers or be able to negotiate as has been suggested.
I do not think that we should create the impression that the Assembly will be an all-singing, all-dancing body that can do all those things. In the foreseeable future, under the terms of this Bill, it will not be able to do so.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: It would be churlish of me to begin my speech without congratulating Ministers on the splendour of their yellow flowers.

Mr. Rogers: Daffodils.

Mr. Letwin: Daffodils. Indeed.
I take pleasure—I think that that is how it was described—in dealing with a small point of definition. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who made many excellent points in Committee, drew the Minister's attention to paragraph 3(2) of the new schedule in Lords amendment No. 170. In that sub-paragraph, a "cross-border body" is so defined that it means the whole of England, save one part—let us imagine, for example, Dorset. Therefore, Dorset would adjoin Wales if it were the whole of England, save one part.
We are told that the saving grace is sub-paragraph (3), in which the transfer of powers over the whole of England, bar Dorset, would be limited to the transfer of powers over water resources in the whole of England, bar Dorset. A further saving grace, I suppose, is provided by paragraph 6, whereby the Minister—if he feels that a consequence of having transferred to the Assembly power over water resources of the whole of England, bar Dorset, is that that power is being used wrongly—can intervene and overrule the Assembly. I cannot think of a way in which the Government could conceivably have concocted a greater chance of dispute between Ministers and the Welsh Assembly in respect of water, but it is not my purpose to tease the Government or to dwell on the matter

at length. However, I should like the Minister to guarantee that, despite the latitude defined in paragraph 3(2), the Government have no intention of applying it, and any transfer of functions over water which occurs to Wales will be, in the ordinary expectation of the term, a cross-border function and not an abuse engendered by the drafting of the provision. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister put that on the record and set the matter to rest.
Much was said in Committee about paragraph 5, which continues to make it perfectly clear that, so long as the Minister believes that he is implementing a European Community directive, he can overrule the Assembly. It is left to the Assembly to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to argue that the Minister has misinterpreted his own action as an implementation of a directive and that it is in fact something else. I should be very grateful if the Minister could point out—although I very much doubt whether he will—any way in which it will fail to be a cause of continuing friction as EC directive after EC directive rains down on us and Ministers seek to implement them over the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps I might start by responding briefly to the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the significance to the economy and the environment of Wales of developments that may be out to sea. An oil rig off the coast of Wales can have a significant bearing on the environment and possibly the economic prospects of the area. If it is within the 12-mile limit, the Assembly will have something to say about it, but if it is outside that limit, it may not. A difference of half a mile one way or another makes very little difference to the impact on the environment or the land. We need clarification of the role of the Assembly concerning developments beyond that limit.
I do not need to impress on Ministers the significance of drowning the valleys and extracting water from Wales. The way in which the Liverpool corporation took the Tryweryn valley, kicked out the residents of Capel Celyn and created a reservoir to provide water for industry on Merseyside without any recompense is probably one reason why three of the four hon. Members representing Gwynedd are from Plaid Cymru. The significance of that for the Assembly is very great indeed.
One of the many reasons for having a National Assembly for Wales is to ensure that there is a body to safeguard the land of Wales so that such action—which was contrary to the united view of Welsh Members of Parliament across party borders as they then were—can never again be taken. If the interpretation of the rules could allow the Secretary of State—perhaps of a different political colour—to intervene and overrule the National Assembly for Wales on the development of reservoirs, on augmenting existing reservoirs or on extracting water from rivers, as happens with the River Dee at the moment, that is very serious.
Paragraph 6 of the new schedule proposed by Lords amendment No. 170 seems quite clear. It states:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the exercise of a relevant transferred environmental function…might have a serious adverse impact on…water resources…water supply…in England, he may intervene".
Sub-paragraph (2) continues:
that function shall not in that case be exercisable by the Assembly.


In other words, the Assembly will not have that function.
Sub-paragraph (3) refers to part II of the Water Resources Act 1991, which states at section 19:
It shall be the duty of the Authority to take…such action as it may from time to time consider…with the directions of the Secretary of State…for the purpose…of conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in England and Wales.
Section 20(2) provides that such arrangements
may make provision, by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, with respect to the construction or installation of any reservoirs, apparatus or other works.
If the Lords amendment goes through, the powers of the Assembly will be undermined. I want a lot of persuasion from the Minister that the Assembly will not lose vital powers that we hoped it would exercise.

5 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had a long and interesting debate. I shall try to sum up the significant issues. The National Assembly for Wales will be consulted about issues such as oil rigs, whether they are in the 12-mile limit or not. The Assembly will be able to exercise additional powers inside the 12-mile limit, but it will be consulted for oil rigs or gas installations on either side of the limit.
On the joint exercise of a power, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), if the Welsh Assembly does not agree with what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wants to do in England, it does not have to implement the proposal in Wales, so there is no problem. The issues of joint powers will be covered in the transfer orders, which will be available in the autumn. They can be considered in detail when they are debated early in the new year. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member wants to put any thoughts to us on transfer orders, we shall be pleased to consider them.
Water is an important issue. Part VI of the Water Industry Act 1991, which deals with water undertakers' powers to make compulsory purchase orders, is separate from the Water Resources Act 1991, which is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the new schedule. The National Assembly will decide about reservoirs and similar matters. Part VII of the Water Resources Act 1991 is about laying water pipes. The compulsory purchase power for reservoirs will lie with the National Assembly.

Mr. Wigley: I am sorry to press the issue, but I am referring to part II, not part VII. Part II makes it clear that people can augment the size of reservoirs. That can have a serious effect on the amount of water flowing in rivers, the amount of fishing and other issues. Will the National Assembly have control over that, or will there be override powers?

Mr. Griffiths: My information is that the power on issues relating to compulsory purchase of land for the provision of further reservoirs will lie with the National Assembly for Wales. Nobody will be able to create a reservoir in any part of Wales without obtaining permission. The issue that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to concerns the Environment Agency, which does not have the funds to build reservoirs, so there can

be no question of a repetition of the Tryweryn situation, because the National Assembly for Wales will have the necessary powers.
The issue raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the extent of transfers under paragraph 3 relates only to genuine cases of cross-border areas, covering parts of Cheshire and Herefordshire that adjoin Wales. No other part of England would be covered. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
I thank all hon. Members for contributing to this very interesting debate. I reassure them again that, under the National Assembly for Wales, the Tryweryn situation certainly could not arise. Any other issues of concern can be dealt with when we debate matters surrounding the transfer orders.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 46.

Division No. 343]
[5.4 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cox, Tom


Alexander, Douglas
Cranston, Ross


Allen, Graham
Crausby, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dalyell, Tam


Austin, John
Darvill, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bayley, Hugh
Davidson, Ian


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Bermingham, Gerald
Denham, John


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drew, David


Blizzard, Bob
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Borrow, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Edwards, Huw


Bradshaw, Ben
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ennis, Jeff


Browne, Desmond
Fatchett, Derek


Buck, Ms Karen
Fisher, Mark


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Byers, Stephen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cann, Jamie
Fyfe, Maria


Caplin, Ivor
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Goggins, Paul


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coaker, Vernon
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Gunnell, John


Colman, Tony
Hain, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hanson, David


Corbett, Robin
Healey, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)






Hepburn, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heppell, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hesford, Stephen
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Hara, Eddie


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hurst, Alan
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hutton, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Iddon, Dr Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pickthall, Colin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Radice, Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)



Kingham, Ms Tess
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Laxton, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Lepper, David
Rooker, Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ruane, Chris


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Shona
Singh, Marsha


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


MacShane, Denis



Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spellar, John


Mallaber, Judy
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Maxton, John
Stringer, Graham


Meale, Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michael, Alun
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Milburn, Alan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Mitchell, Austin
Touhig, Don


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Trickett, Jon





Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Winnick, David


Vis, Dr Rudi
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wise, Audrey


Wareing, Robert N
Woolas, Phil


Watts, David
Worthington, Tony


White, Brian
Wray, James


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. John McFall and



Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Livsey, Richard


Baker, Norman
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Ballard, Jackie
Moore, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Oaten, Mark


Brake, Tom
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brand, Dr Peter
Rendel, David


Breed, Colin
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Burnett, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Burstow, Paul
Sanders, Adrian


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Cotter, Brian
Stunell, Andrew


Dafis, Cynog
Swinney, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Thompson, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tonge, Dr Jenny


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Gorrie, Donald
Welsh, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Lembit Öpik.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

MEMBERSHIP

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out ("proceedings of') and insert ("anything done by")

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4, 13, 17, 19, 23 to 25, 28 to 32, 37 to 44, 46 to 48, 50 to 53, 55 to 68, 70 to 81, 83 to 124, 127 to 143, 145, 147 to 150, 152 to 154, 156, 159, 160, 164 to 167, 171 to 185, 188, 189, 191, 193, 196 to 198, 200, 202, 204 to 206, 208 and 209.

Mr. Griffiths: At one time, I thought about speaking to each of the amendments individually, but, having taken soundings in the House, I find that there is general agreement that they are technical amendments, so I commend them all to the House.

Mr. Denzil Davies: When lawyers hear words such as "technical" and "drafting", even the power of the Whips cannot prevent them from standing up to speak. I shall talk briefly about amendments Nos. 108,


109 and 111. When lawyers see phrases such as "Community law", they really start getting worried—or at least, some of them do.
Amendment No. 108, as contained in the booklet entitled, "Lords amendments to the Government of Wales Bill", would leave out the phrase "Community law or" from clause 108, in page 55, line 30. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Indeed; perhaps that is a good idea. The original clause 108 says:
The Assembly has no power
to do anything that is
incompatible with Community law",
and the Lords amendment would take that out.
I do not know whether we are debating a wholesale repudiation of the acquis communautaire, or whatever that is in Welsh—or, for that matter, in English. Are we now debating the abrogation of the whole of the treaty of Rome? No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that we are probably not. My first question is why—although I would welcome such a move—are we knocking out the words "Community law or", leaving clause 108 specifying only the European convention on human rights?
I may be wrong—I may be reading the wrong document—but I believe that amendment No. 109 to clause 108 would make an insertion that relates entirely to the European convention on human rights. Will my hon. Friend briefly explain that? I was intrigued because amendment No. 109 refers to subsection (1), but there is no subsection (1) in clause 108, at least not in my copy of the Bill. There are many versions of the Bill. I have No. 98. Perhaps clause 108(1) is in another version of the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: Yes.

Mr. Davies: I am glad that Plaid Cymru's legal advisers have kept the party up to speed on that.
Amendment No. 111 to clause 109 is very long and deals with many matters such as quantities relating to the United Kingdom, areas consisting of part of the United Kingdom, Community obligations and the Assembly's power. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister would briefly explain the amendment, because it makes no sense to me. It seems fairly complicated. That amendment also refers to subsection (1), but the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) tells me that that is all right.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I do not want to delay the House by provoking the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I can see that the Whips are very pleased with some of my remarks.
Subsection (1) is referred to, but I cannot find it in my copy of the Bill. I hope that I am not making life too difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister—I merely want to know what will happen to the acquis communautaire.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing those matters to my attention. One of the problems to which he has alluded is the many different versions of the Bill that have appeared over time. I reassure him that amendment No. 108 removes

Community law from clause 108 because that is dealt with in clause 109. I refer my right hon. Friend to subsection (7) in amendment No. 111. That amendment refers to subsection (1) because clauses 108 and 109 have been transposed. Subsection (1) is what is currently the whole of clause 109. I said that these were technical amendments and, if there is any need for further correspondence on this matter, I shall be happy to help my right hon. Friend in that way.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How will the Minister know whether legislation is incompatible with Community law? Clause 109(7) says that the Assembly can do nothing if legislation is incompatible. We should remember the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. We had to wait about eight years before we found out that the Act was incompatible with Community law. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has contempt for such business. He used to be in favour of freedom and liberty—I wish that he still was.
Who will tell the Minister what legislation is incompatible? Will he telephone the Commission or the Foreign Office? How will he know what is incompatible when often we do not know that for many years, until the European Court tells us?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is famous for his ability to grasp issues of Community law. Let me assure him that we shall seek advice from our lawyers on any such issue, so he need not lose any sleep.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4, 13, 17, 19, 23 to 26, 28 to 32, 34 to 48, 50 to 81, 83 to 124, 126 to 210 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 54

ASSEMBLY FIRST SECRETARY AND ASSEMBLY SECRETARIES

Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 28, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly First Secretary, and each of the Assembly Secretaries, is a Crown servant for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 82.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hope that, with the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I can persuade the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 49.
The amendment is a response to what was clause 49 in the first version of the Bill that came before the House, which stated that, for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989, all members of the Welsh Assembly should be Crown servants. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) accepted that that might be inappropriate. He gave assurances to the House that the Government would consider that and return with amendments in the House of Lords. They have done so,


and now propose that only the First Secretary and other Secretaries—essentially the Executive Committee of the Welsh Assembly—should be Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act.
The Under-Secretary—I take his views as having been sincerely expressed—has been concerned during his political career with the pervasiveness, extent and usage of the Official Secrets Act. I put it to the House that when one considers the nature, functions and duties of the Assembly, one wonders why any Official Secrets Act is necessary. The Government have advanced weak arguments here and in another place, where the amendment was moved.
The Government and the House accepted the necessity for an Official Secrets Act in respect of a restricted number of functions: defence, security, intelligence, foreign affairs and certain crime and investigative powers. None of those, per se, falls within the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. They are, perhaps, relevant to the Secretary of State for Wales who sits in the British Cabinet, for whom those issues may arise, but in what respect would they arise for the democratically elected Assembly for Wales? The only example that the Under-Secretary gave the House, on 26 March, was the only relevant argument that he made. He said:
Sensitive information might be provided to an Assembly Member, for example, on police investigations into allegations of child abuse in Wales. An Assembly Member, perhaps with responsibilities for social services on a subject committee, would properly have to have that information. However, he or she should be under an obligation not to disclose that information publicly."—[Official Report, 26 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 727]
He went on to say that the idea was not a novel one.
If one starts disinterring and asking what is behind this or why it is necessary, the example given is not necessarily appropriate. Many hon. Members will have served on county councils, local authorities and so on, where directors of social services are advised by the police in the course of their investigations as to sensitive matters. That does not require the Official Secrets Act or a swearing to it.
5.30 pm
All that I have ever asked the House since the Act came into being is that we should unpick the purpose behind it and ask why it is necessary. The Minister's argument does not stand up. Much confidential information that is exchanged would be covered by the Official Secrets Act. One of the problems that lies in the way that this is constructed is that the Minister is a Minister of the Crown. He may give information to Members of Parliament, or to anyone in society at large, but he is self-authorising, as long as it is within the construct of Cabinet policy. Who will self-authorise in a Welsh Assembly? The amendment is effectively gagging.
I simply ask the good people of Wales and of Britain how they can in conscience be bound when they come upon a piece of information that they profoundly believe is important to the well-being or safety of their constituents. I do not believe that they can be bound in those circumstances.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, in the course of our work

as Members of Parliament, we receive confidential information. I certainly have on occasions from the local police force. That does not make me a Crown servant or require me to comply with the Official Secrets Act.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for, in a sense, supporting an important contention.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I think that we both agree that the Bill as amended by the other place is a huge improvement, and we welcome the Government's change of mind. The justification for the application of the Official Secrets Act, even to the Executive, needs to be stated explicitly. The hon. Gentleman's argument, with which I agree, is that there is much less justification for applying the Official Secrets Act even to members of the Executive, even to the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, than there is to Ministers of the Crown.

Mr. Shepherd: We do agree. On a quantum basis, it must be better that only the Executive of the Welsh Assembly is covered, rather than its totality, but the principle still remains. What is necessary to divide the Executive of the Welsh Assembly, whose members are elected on an equal franchise, different though it may be in type, from the other members of the Welsh Assembly?
In that context, other features of the Official Secrets Act are worrying. This is a life-long duty. A person who was a member of the Executive for perhaps only six months would, in theory, be bound thereafter until such time as he was released from that burden. Who releases people from that burden? None of them is self-authorising.
This is a battle that has been fought in Whitehall—I can see the nature of the civil service defending it—but, on the grounds advanced, the Minister did not give an instance that demonstrates why it is necessary to go to a democratically elected assembly. Nowhere else in the world do they try to impose this.
Lord Williams of Mostyn puts his finger on perhaps the critical reason. In a short debate, he accepted that the measure is unlikely to affect many issues or instances in the Assembly but, almost as a giveaway, he added:
We believe that leading members of the assembly should be covered by the Act to permit a proper flow of information between civil servants and those with executive responsibilities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 354.]
That is one of the themes that have caused confusion, certainly to me, as to the status of the Welsh Assembly. What is its relationship to the Crown in Westminster? We know full well that the Crown is another way of saying the Prime Minister, Downing street, the Cabinet supported by a majority in the House of Commons. This is very much a subordinate body. We are asking to whom civil servants owe their duty of allegiance. Is it to the parliamentary apparatus headed by the Prime Minister, or to the Welsh Assembly?
The Government have just said that the Welsh Assembly is merely a Crown body, so perhaps it falls into that. In the course of Lord Mostyn's address—[Interruption.] I shall just finish this point—he advises us that the Scottish Executive, no less, not a Crown body, will also be subject to the Official Secrets Act. So much


for the claim of right where authority lies with the people. We again have the profound question: to whom do the civil servants owe their responsibilities and duties?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: That is an acute question in Scotland. I apologise to the Whips, but this is a central matter. The truth is that Pandora's box has been opened and we want to know whether the Cabinet Secretary and the other senior civil servants have agreed to what will amount to a breakdown in discipline in the British civil service. That is the issue.

Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate that, and that is why I am concerned. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) wish to intervene?

Mr. Rogers: No, I wish to speak after the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shepherd: I am concerned about this. The culture of secrecy is one side of the argument, against which I tried to fight, because, even in the example given by the Minister of child abuse in Wales, the culture of secrecy did not aid the revelation of what was going on. Would it not have been better if people had come forward, and more loudly, at an earlier stage, rather than everyone being silenced by an Official Secrets Act?
The arguments put forward by the Government in relation to the functions and purposes of the Official Secrets Act are not appropriate for Wales. What signal does that give to Wales? Where is the culture of openness, which is the Government's flagship, no less? I have always been a believer in freedom of information. I fought the new Official Secrets Act. It was brought in, I regret to say, partly in response to my endeavours to reform section 2. There is no reason why a democratic assembly should be subject to it, in a way that does not happen in the rest of the world. Its application to Scotland compounds that outrage.
As this is a Report stage, the Government must give detailed arguments as to why the measure is necessary. I rather suspect that it is that final point—that the civil servants would not owe their duty to Ministers and the Secretaries within the Parliament and the Assembly. Therefore, they have to draw Assembly leaders into the circle of secrecy. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Rhondda wish to intervene?

Mr. Rogers: I want to speak after the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shepherd: It is on that basis that we would argue that we disagree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. Rogers: Like other Labour Members, I am concerned about this critical issue. The Welsh Assembly was supposed to mark the new millennium with a new open democracy, all inclusive, which the people of Wales could crawl all over every day to see what their elected representatives were doing. Now people have to sign the Official Secrets Act. I am confused about why. Why does it have to be applied?

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers: I would rather not, because I want to continue with my argument. I have been a district and

county councillor, a Member of the European Parliament and a Member of Parliament and, other than when I was in the Army as a lad, I never had to sign an Official Secrets Act. No Member of Parliament has signed it, except for Ministers of the Crown and those who are on the Intelligence and Security Committee, but that Committee is most peculiar, as it deals with national security.

Mr. David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers: No. I want to finish. Hon. Members on the Intelligence and Security Committee have to sign the Act for specific reasons, but why should Assembly Members have to sign it? [Interruption.] I wish that the Deputy Chief Whip would let me make my speech. If he wants, I shall continue for an hour and a half—I shall make my point, as it is important. Why should Assembly Members have to sign the Act?

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): They do not.

Mr. Rogers: As I understand it, and as the Government briefing suggests, the provision will apply only to members of the Assembly Executive Committee, who will be Members of the Welsh Assembly. I do not suppose that the Secretary of State will deny that, unless he intends that the Executive Committee be made up of people from the arts and television. Why will members of the Executive have to sign the Act? Will they be privy to national secrets? As far as I can see, the Assembly will be only a glorified county council carrying out administrative functions. It will not indulge in any secret exercises.
As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, people who are on county councils—chairmen and members of social services committee—deal with confidential information on child abuse cases. People who sit on education committees receive information on what happens in the education service, but they do not have to sign the Act, so why must members of the Assembly Executive Committee?

Mr. Öpik: Liberal Democrats, too, believe that we are discussing a matter of principle, but I want to put on the record our welcome for the fact that the Government have listened to the representations made during consideration of the Bill. The Official Secrets Act 1989 will now be restricted to the Assembly First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries, so it behoves us to acknowledge the fact that progress has been made. I have always found Ministers at the Welsh Office honest and open; I do not for a moment think that such individuals would need to be bound, even if they were to end up in the Welsh Assembly—I make the possible exception of cases that relate to the Powys health trust, which I must mention yet again.
Nevertheless, the Government have failed to make the assumption—which we must all make—that people who are elected to the Assembly will be honourable; we shall be able to be trust them to keep their mouths shut and not breach confidentiality without the threat of criminal proceedings. The provision on the Official Secrets Act is inappropriate, given the commitment—which I believe to be genuine—to government that is more open and does not depend on threats of prosecution to make people behave responsibly.
We recognise that progress has been made, but we echo the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is inappropriate to impose the Official Secrets Act on Assembly Members. We strongly encourage the Government to listen to what we say. We want the Assembly to be an open book with a few private notes rather than a closed book with many hidden chapters.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As one of the hon. Members who tabled the amendment, I want to make a few brief points that I hope the House will bear in mind. When the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that Assembly Members would have to sign the Official Secrets Act 1989, his comments were met with contempt by Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), seemed to shake his head as if to say rubbish. However, way back on 26 March, the Government were proposing that every Assembly Member should sign the Act. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I tabled an amendment to point out that the proposal was an outrage.

Mr. Shepherd: In fact, the proposal was much worse; not only did Assembly Members have to sign the Act, but that was mandated by a Westminster statute—they had no alternative. To say that they were required to sign it suggests that they could have said, "I don't wish to sign it." The statute will now affect only the Executive of the Assembly, but it was intended to apply to all Assembly Members by fiat.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. The Government had proposed that, unlike all other democratic assemblies of which I know, the provision would apply to all Members. Happily, a minor change has been made.
On 26 March, I asked why the measure would apply to Wales but not to the Scottish Parliament. The Under-Secretary seemed to have acquired a delightful new interest in democracy, so I was staggered when, a few weeks later on 5 June, it was announced in the House of Lords that the provision would apply to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Grieve: The simple answer to why that was been done must be that the Government believe that it is impossible to govern across the United Kingdom without the exchange of secrets between themselves and those in office in Wales and Scotland. That, of course, strikes at the root of democracy; the provision fetters those in the Scottish Parliament and in the Welsh Assembly, preventing them from responding to the needs of their electorates.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am delighted to hear those words from my hon. Friend. I look forward to his joining me in the battle for democracy whether we have a Conservative or Labour Government—that will be great news for democracy.
I make a point of not attacking people in the House, but I hope that the Under-Secretary—not the Secretary of State, for whom I have a high regard—will appreciate that he was regarded as someone who would fight for liberty and for people's rights. However, he defended a proposal that would apply the Official Secrets Act to every Assembly Member.
What secrets are involved? The impression may be created that the Government are thinking only of massive issues, but that is wrong. I urge hon. Members to consider what respected members of their parties said when the Official Secrets Act was passed. Roy Hattersley, for example, pointed out that it applied not only to big issues, but to every piece of paper marked confidential or above. We were told that there would be a harm test, but, sadly, that does not work.
I hope that hon. Members will also ask themselves what the blazes they would do if they were Executive Members of the Assembly and found a United Kingdom Government or European Union document that contained scandals or abuses that would damage Wales—not England or necessarily Britain, but specifically Wales. Under the provision, Executive Members of the Assembly would not be allowed to refer to such a document in any way. Members of the Executive should be fighting for Wales, so why should they not be able to reveal information about a new policy that would hit Wales hard?
The Government should appreciate that the Welsh Assembly is not a branch or subsidiary part of the UK Government but something separate. I did not want a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly, but, as we are now to have them, we must appreciate that their task is to fight for Scotland and for Wales. Unfortunately, by applying the Official Secrets Act, the Government are giving the impression that they regard the Welsh Assembly as a branch of their operation. The provision is wrong and unnecessary, and I believe that we should accept the Lords amendment. The Official Secrets Act should not apply—the proposal is an insult not only to Wales, but to democracy.

Mr. Ron Davies: I understand that the House wishes to reach a swift conclusion, so I shall curtail my remarks. I compliment the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the way in which he presented his case. I pay tribute to him, and to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for the way in which they have consistently argued their case. Their beliefs are genuine, but wrong; I shall briefly explain why.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills correctly described the history of this debate. The last time it occurred in this House, on Report, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said that the Government intended to give further consideration to the matter. We tabled amendments in the other place, which were discussed there, and we now propose to agree with those amendments.
The Bill, as amended, provides that the Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Secretaries are to be Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), the provision does not apply to Assembly Members per se. The proposal is consistent with our


earlier debates on the issue. Assembly Secretaries will be acting in a quasi-ministerial role and might, from time to time, need to be entrusted with classified information within the meaning of the Act. Lord Williams and police investigations into child abuse were cited, and there are other instances in which classified information might have to be given to Ministers.
The amendment is also essential if Assembly Secretaries are to discharge their responsibilities to the Assembly in European and other international negotiations. If Assembly Secretaries were not bound by the Act, it is quite possible that a Minister of the Crown would be legally unable to share information about such negotiations with them. That would leave the Assembly unable to use the powers available to it to address many matters of vital interest to Wales.
The House will recall that, on Report, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who was then Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on constitutional matters, with his hon. Friends tabled amendments that were identical in effect to the amendment before us now; so did the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), his hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). It is therefore reasonable to assume that amendment No. 49 fully reflects a cross-party consensus in the House. I noted with interest the support for the Government's position expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). There is a cross-party consensus—one to which the Government rightly responded in the other place. I might add that the amendment was warmly welcomed by the Conservative Front Benchers in the other place. I trust that Conservatives in this House share that view.
If the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills gets his way and the amendment is not accepted, members of the Executive Committee will be seriously hampered in their work. They might well be unable to discuss matters of crucial interest to Wales with Ministers of the Crown. They would also have to assent to conditions imposed by civil servants on each and every occasion that they required access to classified material. That would be both inefficient and a distortion of the proper relationship between senior elected Members and their officials.

Mr. Shepherd: It is perfectly true that the then Conservative Front-Bench team and the Liberal Democrats in the other place supported the amendment. However, the Secretary of State should remember that there is a fall-back position from the totalitarian grasp whereby everybody is covered by the Act. Even in the House of Commons, we had a fall-back position. The Secretary of State will have noticed that the Conservative Front Benchers in this place supported the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), so the right hon. Gentleman should not over-emphasise that point.
This is meant to be an intelligent debate in which we test the arguments being advanced. We are hopeful that, when the Bill returns to the Lords, the Government will have reflected on the issue, but it does not sound as though they will, from the Secretary of State's speech.

Mr. Davies: Like the Conservative party, we are a listening Government, and it would be wrong of me not to say that we shall listen carefully to all the comments

that have been made. However, I cannot hold out any prospects, because the matter has been debated and we listened carefully when it was considered on Report. We made a sensible amendment in the other place, and the provision that we now have reflects the need to ensure that the Assembly can conduct its business properly.
If we were to remove the amendment, that would cause considerable doubt about how the Official Secrets Act applied to the Assembly in the conduct of its business. It is possible that, without there being any provision on the face of the Bill, the courts might look at clause 1(3), which gives the Assembly Crown status, and conclude that all Assembly Members were bound by the Act as Crown servants. That is precisely the opposite of what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills wants.
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman seeks to re-run this argument and to overturn an amendment that I genuinely believe improves the Bill and reflects a cross-party consensus both here and in the other place. I am also disappointed that, in so doing, he would leave the Executive Committee in doubt as to its status and hampered in its work. I urge the House to reject the hon. Gentleman's motion and to agree with the Lords in the amendment.

Mr. Shepherd: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the Secretary of State's speech.
I have to say that, no, I do not accept the Secretary of State's argument. I could have written his brief—indeed, it could have been written at any time in the 18 years of the previous Government. No instance—not one—was given of a case where the ability of the Welsh Assembly to address the matters relevant to its remit as a Crown body was constrained. There was only a generality of arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East and I contended that the European dimension—information exchanged between Governments in confidence—would be excluded from the knowledge of the Welsh Assembly. It clearly is of some importance to the Welsh Assembly.
The measure sends out entirely the wrong signals: there is no need for it, and the Government have not made a case for it. I apologise for not having been present on 3 May when the amendment in my name was debated. I was in Canada, meeting the commissioner for freedom of information. The Bill as it stands is truly unsatisfactory. It does not reflect the position of the Opposition, because one key element is missing from the Official Secrets Act—there is no public interest defence.
My rational final point for the Government to consider is to ask how they could seriously mount a prosecution. I shall take an outside-world case, that the leader of the SNP is a Member of the Scottish Parliament and information comes to him that there is something perverse or wrong about Dounreay. What law in the land could hold or bind a man of conscience who wanted to bring to public notice such a threat or fear? No prosecution could succeed. The trouble with the old Official Secrets Act was that it had fallen into disrepute, and the new Act was an attempt to modernise its provisions.
There is no purpose behind the amendment. I am sorry that there was only a three-column debate in the House of Lords, because the issue requires proper reflection. The new Labour Government are sworn to openness; I believe


that, in the past, the words "unbundle Britain" have been used by a right hon. Labour Member. I believe in the democratic rights of the people because of the oldest argument of all: how can we reason but from what we know? A Welsh democratically elected Assembly should be party to the information that is important to the government of Wales.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 82 agreed to.

Clause 4

VOTING AT ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 42, leave out from ("have") to end of line 9 on page 3 and insert
("one vote (referred to in this Act as a constituency vote).
(2) The constituency vote is to be given for a candidate to be the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency.
(3) There shall also be calculated the number of additional member votes for each registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates to be Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included.
(3A) The number of additional member votes for each party shall be the same as the number of constituency votes for the candidate of the party in that constituency.")

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20, each with Government motion to disagree, No. 21, amendment (a) thereto and No. 22, with Government motion to disagree.

Mr. Davies: I believe that it is the mood of the House to move quickly on these matters—

Mr. Robert Syms: Not any more.

Mr. Davies: Fine. In that case, it appears that we have a considerable amount of time in which to develop interesting and persuasive arguments. I look forward to a lengthy exchange on the amendments.
The amendments, which were introduced in the other place to change the additional member system from a two-vote ballot to a single-vote ballot, are fundamentally flawed. They are undemocratic and discriminatory. I believe that the House has a moral obligation to overturn the amendments and to restore unfettered democratic choice to the Welsh electorate.
I remind the House that the White Paper "A Voice for Wales" spelled out clearly that the electoral arrangements for the Assembly would be based on electors having two votes. The additional member system, as proposed for the Assembly by the Government—and endorsed by the electorate in the referendum—would give voters two votes. It is worth reminding the House that, before the election, there was broadly based agreement that that form of electoral system was necessary for the Assembly. Agreement was sufficiently broadly based so that all

Members of Parliament elected at the last election to represent Welsh constituencies subscribed to it in their national manifestos.
At its conference in March 1997, the Labour party unanimously agreed that that was the system we wanted. I had many discussions with Alex Carlile, the former Liberal Democrat leader in Wales, and I know that he broadly accepted the proposal, as did the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and his party. I acknowledge that there were some differences, and that some amendments were required, but there was broadly based consensus that the additional member system was necessary in order to introduce the form of plurality into the Welsh Assembly that that new democratic institution demanded.
6 pm
There was broadly based agreement in 1997, and the people of Wales obviously accepted that view at the general election, because they voted to elect in each of the 40 Welsh constituencies Members of Parliament whose national manifestos supported the additional member system. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) does not want to re-run the referendum, even at this late stage. However, those proposals were put before the people of Wales in that referendum of 18 September last year, and they endorsed them. The House should consider that point very carefully.
The Government propose that electors should have two votes. The first would be for the constituency Member, elected by the first-past-the-post system under the traditional method. The second would be for a party list or independent candidate—that is particularly important in rural Wales; I know that Conservative Members do not understand the politics of rural Wales, so I urge them to reflect carefully on this point—

Mr. Letwin: We have.

Mr. Davies: I am being uncharacteristically generous to the hon. Gentleman.
The second vote would be for a party list or independent candidate, and would determine the four additional Members for the voter's electoral region. Under our proposals, voters would be given the right to choose whom they vote for in both the constituency and the electoral region.
It is quite possible that voters would take two separate decisions: they might decide to support one candidate in the constituency section and a party in the regional list. That is common practice in Wales. Indeed, at the last election, I venture to suggest that there was a great deal of tactical voting. The people of Wales regard that as a great success, because they got rid of all Conservative Members of Parliament for Wales. I can understand why the Conservative party is loth to see the development of any electoral system that empowers people to get rid of Conservative candidates, but that is the reality of politics in Wales.
The other place has chosen to deny that choice to the people of Wales, and that issue is at the heart of our debate. The amendments introduced there allow voters one vote only—they deny the opportunity for a second vote—for the constituency ballot. Under those


arrangements, a voter wishing to express a choice for the regional candidates can vote only for a constituency candidate from a party that has also put forward a party list.
I shall give an example from my constituency. A vote for the Conservative candidate in Caerphilly—a rare prospect, one might imagine, but it is nevertheless technically possible—would register automatically as a vote for the Conservative party list for the whole south Wales east electoral region. I am prepared to acknowledge that some of my constituents might choose to vote Conservative as an alternative to voting for the Labour candidate—they may be instinctively inclined to support Labour but have some difficulty supporting the Labour candidate in Caerphilly.
However, under those circumstances, it would be wrong to assume that they would always vote Conservative, and to tot up those votes for the Conservative party. However, that is precisely the effect of the amendment that the House of Lords invites us to accept. The voter would not have the option to vote for the list of a different party.
The consequence of the single vote system is that the four additional Members elected from each of the five regions will be elected indirectly. That makes a total of 20 indirectly elected Assembly Members from a total of only 60. Under the proposals endorsed by the electorate in the referendum, the additional Members would each receive a separate mandate from electors choosing to support their party.
The question arises under the Lords amendments: to whom would those Members be accountable? Would they be accountable to the electorate, or to the constituency Members in their regions for whom the votes were cast directly? If the hon. Member for West Dorset reflects on that point, he will see that that is precisely the logic behind the House of Lords suggestion.
The provisions inserted in the other place are discriminatory. They discriminate against small parties. That may concern the Conservative party, because, according to the latest evidence, it is the smallest party in Wales. Conservative Members should reflect carefully on the prospect of suffering more self-inflicted damage. The provisions also discriminate against independent candidates—that point concerns me, as I am sure that the Conservative party can look after itself—and against elector choice.
For smaller parties, which are unlikely to win any constituency seats, the best chance of winning seats is through the electoral region. Under these arrangements, to have any chance of winning additional member seats in a region, a party would have to put forward candidates in all constituencies within that region. That is manifestly unfair in the case of parties such as the Green party. It would mean putting up between seven and nine constituency candidates per region, which would be a tremendous strain on the finances and resources of those small parties.
Why should smaller parties be obliged to overreach themselves and compete in the most unfavourable circumstances? Having looked closely at the arguments made in the other place, I can conclude only that it is simply because the Conservatives have a fertile imagination.
In our previous debates, and in the other place, Conservative Front Benchers sought to suggest that the electoral system proposed by the Government would distinguish between the status of Members voted for at the constituency level and those from the list. That will not be the case. However, the amendments made by the other place offer the clearest indication that the official Opposition want to have second-class Members of the Assembly. That is unacceptable to the Government.
The Conservative spokesman in the other place made much of the possibility of collusion by political parties—even though the House and the other place have put it on record that the parties will not entertain any such suggestion. I give the hon. Member for West Dorset an assurance that there will be no collusion by my party or by any persons standing as Labour party candidates.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that the Labour party made a momentous decision in moving away from a system that had served us well, guaranteed us a majority and denied the Conservative party a majority in Wales every since the secret ballot was introduced in the last century. It was a momentous decision to move to a system that guaranteed fairer representation for all political parties in Wales.
It is a travesty of politics in Wales to suggest that, having moved from that position, the Labour party would seek deliberately to collude or enter into underhanded arrangements that would deny the effect of our proposed change. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on that point. The amendments made by the Lords offer the clearest indication that the official Opposition want to create suspicion.

Dr. Liam Fox: How does the Secretary of State define "collusion"? For the sake of clarity, when he says that the Labour party will not collude, to what is he referring specifically?

Mr. Davies: I am happy to explain, because this was the subject of some discussion in the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), also raised the issue, and I gave him a similar assurance.
For example, it was suggested that the Labour party would put up candidates in the south Wales east region to contest all the constituencies quite properly on a first-past-the-post basis, but would not enter any candidates for the additional member seats, putting forward instead candidates standing in the name of the Co-operative party. The Co-operative party is part of the Labour party. The suggestion is that we would then encourage Labour voters not to vote for the Labour candidate—there would not be one—but to vote for the Co-operative party candidate and that, after the election, the Co-operative party candidate would form an immediate one-party alliance with the Labour party.
It has been suggested that we would not put forward candidates in mid and west Wales, for example, but would choose individuals who were known to be Labour party supporters, and that the party machine would support them as independent candidates. Immediately after the election of the Assembly, those independent candidates would automatically take the whip of the Labour party.
Such collusion is technically possible, which is why I want to assure the House that, as far as I am concerned—as Secretary of State for Wales, I have some influence in these matters—there will be no such collusion when we fight the election.

Dr. Fox: Although I accept the Secretary of State's assurance—I give the same assurance on behalf of the Conservative party—we cannot speak for other parties. The Secretary of State admits that collusion is possible. Does he not therefore think that there should be a provision in the Bill to prevent such activity?

Mr. Davies: That may be so, but the proposal that we are discussing strikes at the very heart of the democratic arrangements. It does not achieve the objective that the Opposition seek to achieve, but strikes out the principle of proportionality in the electoral system. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance that there will be no collusion by the Conservative party, but I must tell him in a spirit of friendship that I would not mind if the Conservative party did collude, because, according to the latest information available, even with collusion the Conservatives would be unlikely to win many seats in the Welsh Assembly.
The Conservatives are not really afraid of the possibility of collusion—that is a smokescreen; their real fear is that there is such a broad-based consensus in Wales that people will choose to vote for, dare I say it, a Liberal Democrat candidate in Brecon and Radnor if they feel that that vote is most likely to succeed in getting rid of the Conservatives.
In exactly the same way, it is clear that, in the 1997 election, a range of people who were broadly left of centre in Monmouth, Vale of Glamorgan or Vale of Clwyd were prepared to support the Labour candidate, because they thought that that was the best way to guarantee getting rid of what they considered to be a discredited and unacceptable Conservative party candidate. They wanted a Tory-free Wales, and to set Wales on the path of creating a new democracy.
That actually happened. We cannot quantify it, because I can give no direct evidence to the Opposition, but I know from my experience of canvassing in Brecon and Radnor—Montgomery was not top of the Labour party's hit list at the last election—where I spent many happy days trying to persuade people to vote Labour, that many people told me that the only way to get rid of the dreadful, rotten, corrupt, incompetent and feckless Conservative Government was to vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate, even though they did not admire his personal qualities.

Mr. Letwin: I wonder whether the Secretary of State has understood what he has just said. If the amendment were accepted and people were to follow the tactic that he describes, that would do worse damage to the Tory cause than the system that he proposes.

Mr. Davies: That intervention shows how difficult the Conservative party finds it to come into touch with the reality of modern politics. I do not regard the electoral

system as something that should be constructed in order to advance the interests of my political party. Politics in Wales has moved on from that.
The hon. Gentleman clearly cannot understand that I want a system that ensures that the 20 per cent. of people in Wales who voted Conservative at the last election are properly represented in the Assembly if they choose to vote Conservative again. I do not want them to vote Conservative, and will do all I can by argument and campaigning to prevent them from doing so, but if they choose to vote for the Conservative party, they should be represented in the Assembly.

Mr. Letwin: As Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to maintain some intellectual integrity in this argument. Did he not argue that the Conservative party was supporting the amendment not because we were concerned about alter ego parties but because we were trying to preserve ourselves against the circumstances that he described? He should have the grace to admit that that argument is wholly fallacious, because the amendment makes our position under those circumstances worse, and we must therefore have a different motive—genuinely to prevent the problem of alter ego parties.

Mr. Davies: I do not accept that. I am trying to save the Conservative party from itself. The hon. Gentleman must understand that these moments of generosity are few and far between, so I urge the Conservatives—

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? He has now been in the House long enough to know that, when someone is responding to an intervention, it is courteous and sensible to allow that intervention to be dealt with before making another. If he will contain himself for a moment, I shall finish dealing with the previous intervention.
This is a serious matter. We are trying to construct a new form of inclusive democracy in Wales, and the Conservative party seeks to strike at the heart of the electoral arrangements that we propose.

Mr. Grieve: Does the Secretary of State agree that the alternative way of viewing the matter is that he is concerned for the time when the worm turns? When the worm turns, his party might be at a disadvantage in Wales.

Mr. Davies: It is quite clear that I am wasting my time. Despite my best efforts and those of all political parties in Wales, the Conservatives refuse to be brought into touch with the reality of modern politics. I am not concerned about the time, in five, 10 or 15 years, when the electoral cycle has moved on and the Labour party has 40 seats rather than the current 34. When that happens, we shall have to grin and bear it, with fortitude and good humour.
I know that the electoral cycle swings. Hon. Members must now recognise that we have a broad-based consensus. The last election was fought on that basis, as was the referendum—

Mr. Desmond Swayne: rose—

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should contain himself, because it is possible to strain my tolerance and good humour. If anybody can do so, it is the hon. Gentleman.
As I was saying, we have a broad-based consensus. The House of Commons passed the Bill with a record majority of 220. It was accepted in Committee, and there were never any questions about it, but we are now faced with the prospect of the House of Lords striking out a measure that is at the heart of the creation of the Welsh Assembly.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), but, as the House wants to listen to the views of other hon. Members, I should like to make some progress thereafter.

Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the consensus cannot be judged to last for ever. The undertaking that he has so willingly given that none of the parties present will indulge in so-called "split ticket voting" cannot be held as a guarantee for ever. We are simply trying to put in place processes that will prevent that once the electoral cycle has moved on. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the measures that we propose, should he not think of other more appropriate measures to put in the Bill?

Mr. Davies: I have thought of other more appropriate measures. They were put in my party's manifesto at the last election, and we won 34 out of 40 parliamentary seats in Wales. The other parties with similar proposals also won the confidence of the majority of the people of Wales.
The Conservative party, which was the only one trying to defend the status quo—it was stuck in a time warp, and was not prepared to move on to a new form of inclusive, rational, sane, democratic politics—paid the price. The people endorsed our proposals again in the referendum, and this House has endorsed them. What we are now seeing is Conservative Front-Bench Members trying to justify a measure that was inserted against their better judgment in the House of Lords. I want to move on now, if I may.
The Lords amendments are driven by party self-interest. The last thing that the official Opposition want is the people of Wales to be able fully to exercise their democratic rights—they fully realise the difficulties that befell them at the general election. I would not dispute the intelligence of the United Kingdom electorate, and we should leave it to them, not to a diktat from the Conservative party, to decide who they want to represent them in the Assembly.
The changes would discriminate against independent candidates by denying them the opportunity to stand in an electoral region, and by undermining their chances in individual constituencies. The single vote system would mean that anyone who voted in a constituency for an independent candidate would not register a vote in the indirect election of the additional members.
How many voters who might vote for an independent in their constituency would do so when they realised that they would disfranchise themselves in the regional election? Very few, which is where the Lords amendment would discriminate so directly and blatantly against independent candidates. It is important in politics, certainly in rural Wales, that individual candidates should be able to come forward.
I do not understand why the Conservative party wants to impose such draconian restrictions on small parties such as the Green party and on the independents, especially when the Conservative party faces the prospect of becoming an even smaller party. I do not understand why voters should not be able to vote for one party in a constituency and for the list of another party in the electoral region. That is the heart of the arrangements we propose. Ours is a democracy of long standing, and we have a mature electorate who are well able to take responsible decisions for themselves.
Lords amendment No. 21 greatly extends the reference in respect of the party list to be used in the event of a vacancy in a party list seat. It is otiose. The original drafting made it perfectly clear which was the relevant list, and did so quite succinctly. The Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 21 will restore the clarity of the provision. I urge the House to overturn these amendments and to agree to the Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 21.

Mr. Letwin: It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should engage in political knockabout in a discussion of a serious constitutional issue. I do not say that it is the biggest constitutional issue that has ever hit the face of the earth, but it is significant and he should take the argument seriously.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who briefly graced us with his presence, presumably found the Secretary of State' s remarks too difficult to swallow and left. During proceedings on the Registration of Political Parties Bill, the Under-Secretary was good enough frequently to acknowledge the seriousness of the question of alter ego parties—what the Secretary of State calls collusion. Although the Under-Secretary found it difficult to accept amendments because they would not have been effective against the problem, he made it clear that he hoped that the Government would seek measures to prevent such abuse.
We have before us a clear case. We did not invent the idea of introducing the alternative member system to the Welsh Assembly—the Government did that. Nor does the Lords amendment, despite the Secretary of State's amusing efforts to make it seem so, in any way militate against the integrity of that system. On the contrary, it retains all the ability for top-up to occur, one way or another, to the advantage of whatever party it might be.

Mr. Win Griffiths: There has been an additional member system in Germany for many years. Can the hon. Gentleman cite one example, or even a handful, of where such a thing has happened in the German body politic? I cannot think of any.

Mr. Letwin: That is an interesting point which has been much discussed. So far as we are aware, there are no examples at national level, in Germany or elsewhere, of parties engaging in alter ego activities. At lander level, there have been some such suggestions and attempts, although I understand that none were brought to fruition. The Secretary of State and the Minister are relying on the proposition that the same discipline will apply in Wales. We do not say that it may not apply; it may, but there is no reason on earth not to have an amendment or a rule preventing that occurrence.
The Secretary of State and the Minister presumably agree with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that this is a serious problem which needs tackling. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State is saying from a sedentary position that the Lords amendment has other disadvantages which outweigh its advantage of removing the alter ego party problem, it would have been better if he had couched his speech in such terms. It would then have been intellectually respectable and we could have come to the arguments about whether the Lords amendment has other disadvantages which outweigh its advantage.
If the Secretary of State had thought through the issue and come to such a conclusion, he should have brought forward alternative methods, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said when he was taxing the Secretary of State's patience from the Back Benches. Alternative methods were discussed in the other place, such as rules about having to be represented in both parts of the voting. Those were not pressed, but it is entirely possible for the Secretary of State to come back with a better version of a rule to prevent alter ego party activities.

Mr. Ron Davies: Yes, of course, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman now understands this matter does not tax us greatly. If there is a responsibility on anyone, it is on the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to introduce a proposition to deal with the problem. They have not done that. The responsibility is theirs, if they believe that the Bill needs improvement. We do not.

Mr. Letwin: Our noble Friends in the other place have introduced exactly such a proposition to solve that problem. To move to the Secretary of State's serious arguments, he claims that it has other disadvantages. [Interruption.] Well, let us go through what those other huge, serious problems are meant to be.
The Secretary of State told us that the Lords amendment was flawed, undemocratic and discriminatory. The arguments that he put forward boiled down to one thing: he claimed that, although the single vote proposition would cure the alter ego problem, it would cause difficulties for smaller parties. Let us examine what he means by that proposition.

Mr. Ron Davies: I said more than that.

Mr. Letwin: I do not think that the Secretary of State said any more than that; he simply said it several different ways.

Mr. Ron Davies: So that there is no misunderstanding, I made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the

additional member system is to create a new inclusive politics with parties receiving representation in accordance with the percentage of the vote that they receive from the electorate.

Mr. Letwin: I fear that I have overrated the Secretary of State. I had thought that he was engaging in political knockabout because he well understood the point and was merely having fun at our expense, but it appears that he is genuinely under a misapprehension. Let me explain; the single vote proposition maintains entirely the integrity of the inclusive politics to which he is so attached.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The hon. Gentleman represents the small party in Wales.

Mr. Letwin: I am leaving aside the question of the smaller parties, but I shall return to it.
The single vote proposition leaves entirely intact the proposition that a party that receives N per cent. of the vote will receive N per cent. of the representation, barring the question of the divisors. It would make no change in that, so we are left with the Secretary of State's one serious point: does the Lords amendment in any way seriously militate against smaller parties?
I shall distinguish between two kinds of smaller party, although the Secretary of State did not do so clearly until the end of his remarks. On the one hand, there are parties that are small because they have small popular appeal in Wales, or in a region of Wales, and do not have much money. On the other, there are genuine Independents, or the party sole—a person who wants to stand in a particular constituency and does not have a party behind him.
The Secretary of State succeeded in muddling the two cases virtually entirely, but let me try to disentangle them. He alluded to the Green party, but I shall start with the Conservative party, which he says is a smaller party. I assure him that rules which meant that the Conservative party had to put up candidates in all seats would pose us no problem. We are quite up to that job. I am grateful to him for his concern for us, but we can look after ourselves. I venture that every other party represented in the House is in a similar position, so there is no question of discrimination against major political parties in Wales or elsewhere.
What are we asking of the Green party in the single vote proposition? We are asking it to risk its deposit in a number of seats to benefit from the top-up, which occurs through the single vote mechanism. The only difference between the Lords amendment and the Bill is that Green party deposits would be put at risk. It has regularly run candidates who clearly stood in the greatest possible danger of losing their deposits, but that did not stop them. I do not think that the Green party would have the slightest difficulty in putting up candidates, but, if the Secretary of State thinks that a serious problem exists, it falls to him to table an amendment to reduce the amount of the deposit. That would be a legitimate tactic, and it would be a conclusive answer to his argument. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman's argument has only a monetary aspect—nothing else that he has said carries the slightest credence—and, if he is worried about money, he can deal with that in a way that we would doubtless accept.
6.30 pm
Let us now turn to the other part of the argument. The Secretary of State managed to confuse it with something else, but it is the beginning of a shred of a serious argument against the single-vote amendment—the only one that I have heard so far. I refer to the question of an Independent who wishes to stand for a particular seat. The Secretary of State said, or at least tried to say, that the amendment posed a problem for such an Independent. He seemed to be arguing that voters who were really Labour voters—to be generous, as he would say—but who happened to like Mr. X, an Independent, would be disinclined to vote for Mr. X, knowing that their vote, as a Labour vote, would not be added to the total number of Labour votes in terms of the additional member list and that they would not have expressed their preference for the Labour party to have a large proportion of the total number of votes in the Assembly. I suppose that the Secretary of State was trying to say that people would be more inclined to vote for the Labour candidate, and that would be unfair on the Independent candidate.
It is uncharacteristically generous—or perhaps I should be more generous myself, and say that it is characteristically generous—of the Secretary of State to be so concerned about Independents, who, in general, would militate against the Labour party's success in Wales. I must add, however, that, if an Independent stood any serious chance of winning a seat, it is very unlikely that people would refuse to support him for tactical reasons, simply to ensure that their vote—which, necessarily, would constitute only a small part of the total—was registered in the additional member list for the party of their choice. The Secretary of State's argument is extraordinarily tenuous.
This, I think, is the structure of that argument: is the slight disadvantage accruing to the Independent member enough, in the view of any reasonable person, to outweigh the huge advantage recognised by his Home Office colleague of preventing for all time the alter ego party problem, which could distort the result absolutely?

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman has ignored one of the key reasons why the Liberal Democrats supported the change: proportional representation. Will he confirm that one of the factors that simply do not matter to the Tories is the introduction of proportional representation as an electoral system, and that he and his party do not recognise the importance of the pluralism that proportional representation will necessarily introduce in Wales?

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable person, must have misunderstood the way in which the amendment is intended to work. Let me explain slowly, in the genuine hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman that he is under a misapprehension.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Letwin: May I explain? Then I will give way again.
In the single-vote system proposed in the amendment, those who vote for a candidate who is or is not successful—in other words, all who vote for all candidates in all constituencies—add to the total of votes for their

party. Thus, eventually, there will be a system of proportional representation through the additional member list, as intended by the Government and by my party, which will not be compromised by the amendment.

Mr. Öpik: To save the hon. Gentleman any more bother, let me say that I am perfectly aware of what his proposal seeks to do. Does he not understand, however, that the system he proposes is not a system of proportional representation? As many hon. Members have pointed out, it will be skewed by the preference for individual candidates, unrelated to their political parties. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the system he is proposing depends less on party preference than on other factors that will hopelessly skew the proportional-representation outcome that every other hon. Member wants?

Mr. Letwin: I did the hon. Gentleman an injustice. I understand his argument now. He is saying that the amendment would distort the proportions that would otherwise obtain. His argument is an elaboration, or indeed a stronger version, of the Secretary of State's argument. Perhaps he should swap places with the Secretary of State in order to present it properly.
The hon. Gentleman's argument is that the proportions would be distorted, because preferences for particular candidates in particular seats would enter into the equation of apparent preferences for a particular party—his or ours—and that would not be a fair representation of people's party preferences. That might obtain to a slight extent, but I think the hon. Gentleman would accept that all the evidence so far from psephologists who have studied elections not only in this country, but in other countries that have strongly established party systems, suggests that very few people vote for candidates rather than for the party of their choice—except in the case of tactical voting, which the amendment and the additional member system would remove.
Although valid, unlike most of the Secretary of State's arguments, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would have a minuscule effect. We return to this question: would that effect be greater or less than what the hon. Gentleman considers to be an academic proposition by us—the prevention of alter ego parties?
The Secretary of State says that, because the major political parties have promised that they will not run alter ego candidates, all is well. He suggests that we should go happily to bed, and not trouble the House further with tedious arguments that keep him from his important business of mismanaging Welsh affairs. It is very likely that he is right. We have yet to hear a final statement from the leader of one of the major political parties, but I gathered from an earlier exchange of nods that we would hear such a statement tonight. Indeed, it may already have been made; I may not have heard it.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman cast the same slur in an earlier debate. As he has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), there is no basis for that slur. There is no reason to expect that we would fiddle the electoral system, any more than the hon. Gentleman's party would.

Mr. Letwin: I am delighted to hear that statement, and I fully believe it. The current position is excellent: the major parties have promised not to take such action. However, will that be true in all circumstances and at all times? We are legislating for a constitution and an electoral system, and the Secretary of State's colleagues in the Home Office have admitted that, should such a problem arise at a time when it mattered, it would matter a great deal. It could distort the whole result of an election.
Can such circumstances be imagined? I regret to say this—the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will probably think me a cad—but I am trying to tell what I believe to be the truth. It is not intended as any sort of slur on his or his party's honour.
If I were the right hon. Gentleman, and if I believed in Welsh independence as sincerely and passionately as I think he does, and if there came a time—not at the next election, but, judging by what has happened in Scotland and the way in which Labour is proceeding, such a time may come—when the right hon. Gentleman's party stood a chance of gaining an overall majority, I might be inclined to use such a tactic just once. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to use it ever again.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman might; we would not.

Mr. Letwin: I am delighted to hear that.

Mr. Ron Davies: Nor would we.

Mr. Letwin: I am delighted at that as well. However, it is not good law—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman stop digging a hole for himself? He is casting aspersions that are entirely baseless, for which there is not a shred of evidence. I ask him to withdraw them.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I have considerable respect for him, for his party and for the sincerity with which his party holds its views. The fact is, however, that there could come a time when the balance was so delicate that there was a possibility of achieving a long-held desire. In such circumstances, it makes sense to legislate to stop that possibility.
I concede that, if the amendment gave rise to serious difficulties—if the Secretary of State, unaided by the Liberal Democrats, had been able to produce a serious argument—that remote possibility might not be worth pursuing; but the fact is that the amendment has no serious disadvantages. There are slight disadvantages associated with Independents, and there is a slight possibility of distortion in regard to proportionality, but those are not serious problems. The serious point is that there is a slight risk of a devastating disaster, which ought to be legislated for.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In spite of the pseudo-cerebral meanderings of the Opposition spokesman in his worst, or perhaps best, Reith lecturer manqué mode, it is clear that the Tories motive for tabling this amendment is based on their fear of finishing fourth in the Welsh

Assembly elections. Despite the protestations of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), that is what the amendment is all about.
The Tories know from bitter experience and from all the latest opinion poll evidence that they have not recovered from their below 20 per cent. performance in the election last May. They also know that if the people of Wales are faced with the prospect of voting, not for an individual, but for a party, those who split their votes are more likely to vote for other parties and not for the Conservative party. That is the naked truth, despite the hon. Gentleman's protestations that this is a great constitutional exercise to help to clean up politics in 30 or 40 years' time, because of the possibility of parties subdividing themselves to take advantage of the two-vote system.
Will the Tory party ever get away from the problem that they have with the people of Wales, which causes this dilemma? Their proposition is that a Conservative candidate may get 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the vote, depending on the constituency, but in the second vote the Conservative party will do less well than the individual Conservative candidate. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to believe that he thinks that the Conservative party in Clwyd, North-West is less popular than Rod Richards. That is an extraordinary proposition, but that is the basis of the Conservatives' thought processes.
The Conservative party is still unable to come to terms with the decision made by the people of Wales. There may be split ticket voting: people may vote for a Labour, Liberal Democrat or Plaid Cymru candidate, but will vote for another party with their second vote to have another bite of the cherry. It is human nature that 5 or 10 per cent. of the electorate will think that that is the wise thing to do. Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Labour votes may be interchangeable, but they will not leak out to the Conservatives.

Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Morgan: I shall give way in a second.
Conservative voters, if they are of the same mind as split ticket voters, will vote for a Conservative Member of the Welsh Assembly but may vote for another party with their second vote. The Conservatives lose on the leaking out, but they do not gain anything on the leaking in, because they refuse to come to terms with devolution. The three parties that are in favour of devolution have the right body language for the Welsh Assembly, but the Conservative party is still playing devolution hokey-cokey: put the right leg in, take the right leg out, put the right leg in and shake it all about.
The Conservatives will not overcome this problem. The votes of the other three parties may be interchangeable for the 5 or 10 per cent. who split their votes, but the Conservative party will not gain because it is not seen as playing the game and is not positive about devolution. If it accepted devolution, it would not lose when people vote for a Member of the Welsh Assembly from one party, but vote for another party on the second vote.
I shall now give way to my hon. Friend, who is an expert on the hokey-cokey.

Mr. Rogers: I would rather leave that to my hon. Friend, who is more skilled in verbosity. He talks about


the interchangeability of votes. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), realised a couple of weeks ago that it is possible that more than 50 per cent. of the people in Wales are against the Welsh Assembly, and, although 50 per cent. of the votes may be interchangeable between the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Labour, the only Unionist party standing will be the Conservative party. The Labour party must wake up to that fact.

Mr. Morgan: That may be to the Conservative party's advantage, but opinion poll evidence suggests that its position is now worse than it was last May when it got only about 19.5 per cent. of the vote. Its Unionist stance has not done its prospects in the vote next May any good. Everything may change by next May, but the problem is that the Conservative vote in Wales, such as it is, is soft and may leak out on the second vote. Conservatives know that they will not gain from the split ticket voting of voters of the other three parties. That is the motivation behind the absurd position that they are presenting. It is not a fear of parties subdividing, but of finishing fourth in the elections next May.

Mr. Livsey: The Bill proposes a two-vote additional member system, which was contained in the White Paper. It was clear in the referendum last year that every voter in Wales, especially those who voted yes, understood that. The Liberal Democrats would prefer the use of the single transferable vote system. If the official Opposition were proposing an amendment that included the single transferable vote, we would have a different view of what they are up to.

Dr. Fox: Given the great consistency shown by the hon. Gentleman's party on the single transferable vote issue, why did his party in the House of Lords vote against this proposal when it was considered in the other place?

Mr. Livsey: Our approach was based on realism. It was recognised that we must get the Bill through. The element of proportionality contained in the Bill is a seismic move forward, and the amendment would unstitch that. We accept that the additional member system proposed by the Government is a vast improvement on the first-past-the-post system. It is a more proportional electoral system, and it is one of the features that we support. It will ensure that representation bears more resemblance to the proportions of votes cast, and it will be fairer to all parties. As has been said several times, that is part of the new politics, and we welcome that.
The two-vote additional member system has the advantage of allowing voters to express their preferences for individual candidates in the constituencies and for parties on the lists. That clearly increases voter choice, and allows a vote to be cast for an individual from a different party to the list vote. It allows local, effective candidates to be rewarded above party preferences, with party preferences being re-established in the list vote.
The two-vote system also makes it more likely that an independent candidate can be elected for a region. The Conservative amendments would remove the provision for independent candidates to stand in the

regions. That is undemocratic, and the Bill should not exclude the possibility of independent candidates coming forward. In my constituency in 1983, I was opposed by a rural revivalist, Richard Booth, who is a well-known local bookseller in Hay-on-Wye. Does the Conservative party really want to snuff out such individualism and such colour in our political system?
Following the election, we want a review of the electoral system to be used for the Assembly. The Secretary of State agreed to such a review with Alex Carlile, the former Member for Montgomery. Why is there no provision for a review in the Bill? We hope that the spirit in which the Secretary of State came to that agreement with Alex Carlile will live on. The Government conceded in amendment No. 136 that a review of the Assembly's work with regard to sustainable development should be carried out. We should like an assurance from the Secretary of State that the agreement that was struck with Alex Carlile will be honoured. He has given that before, and I am sure he will not find it difficult to give it again.
The Tories say that their amendments will prevent split-ticket voting and stop parties using the additional member system to their advantage. I shall shorten my speech because we have been through all that and I want to make progress. The Minister has made it clear that there was no collusion. I said that we did not subscribe to such a practice and Plaid Cymru also said that, so we can bury that issue.
We would have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment if the only outcome would be to prevent split-ticket voting. However, it would reduce voter choice, which is crucial, and would remove the ability of independents to stand in the regions as well. The amendments are not the best way to prevent dishonesty, and we do not support them. We supported amendments to the Registration of Political Parties Bill to prevent split-ticket voting, and I hope that another way can be found to prevent it under this legislation.
Lords amendment No. 21 closes a loophole that would allow a person who has left a political party to become an Assembly Member following a vacancy for the party that he or she has left. It will protect parties from the problem of defectors and ensure that voters are represented by a member of the party that they support. We welcome that amendment.

Mr. Syms: In Committee, we had a wide-ranging debate on electoral arrangements. When we raised concerns, we were told that they would be dealt with under the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I was on the Committee that examined that Bill, and some of the issues that were raised then, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), relating to alter ego parties are not dealt with by that Bill. To some extent, that is why the amendment has been tabled. It would not be necessary if the Registration of Political Parties Bill had closed what may be a loophole.
When the electoral arrangements for a description on the ballot paper were changed in the late 1960s, James Callaghan told the House that the arrangements would not be abused, but, in recent years, people have used descriptions to mislead electors. The Registration of Political Parties Bill rules out that abuse, but, under the additional member system there is potential—I put it


no higher than that—for abuse by some alter ego parties. We are all honourable people in the Chamber, and I do not think that any party would try to deceive the electors. However, if there is a loophole some party may try to use it. It may do that only once, after which there would be great uproar and perhaps the law would be changed. At this stage, the general concern, certainly among Opposition Members, is to close the loophole now.
A single vote proposal for first-past-the-post seats and a top-up list is not new. The Hansard Society proposed alternatives to our current electoral system in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and came up with a similar proposal. I understand the Secretary of State's point that, in one or two cases, it would cut out independents, but it is a question of balancing rights and wrongs. The deficiencies in the current legislation may outweigh the difficulties of the change in terms of a single vote causing difficulties for one or two independents.
The additional member system has been used in Germany, and there have not been many examples of alter ego parties. In one or two lander elections, particularly in north Germany, some states parties tended to align with one or other of the major parties—the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats—because there was an advantage in picking up list seats. In the early 1950s, the German Refugees party, which was part of the Adenauer coalition, used to garner a substantial number of votes on the list. Of course, it was part of the general centre-right and over the years it was absorbed into the Christian Democrats. That is probably the only example of a party that picked up list seats. The issue is serious and it deserves careful consideration.
In the context of alter ego parties, whether it is an advantage to a party to try to pull a fast one depends a great deal on the predictability of the first-past-the-post results because, under the additional member system, the distribution of additional seats is in proportion to those who do badly or those who do very well in terms of first-past-the-post seats. The one certainty about Welsh politics, certainly in terms of single-member constituencies, is that it is a relatively predictable area of the United Kingdom in that it regularly returns Labour party candidates. I do not think that there are many marginal seats in the Principality. In future, it would be possible for a political party to form a view on how it will fare on first-past-the-post and perhaps arrange matters in a way that might enable it to get some slight additional benefit under the additional member system. That system reduces the likelihood of a party getting an overall majority, partly because of proportionality.
There are 40 first-past-the-post and 20 additional-list seats and perhaps a party—in the context of Wales, it would probably be the Labour party—might be close to an overall majority. In such an event, there would be a tremendous temptation to get an extra seat or two to try to form an administration. All politicians are sometimes tempted, especially when we feel passionately about our cause. The amendment merely tries to fill a gap that the Registration of Political Parties Bill has not filled and to deal with this important issue.

Mr. Öpik: No Conservative Member has described how the Opposition system takes account of the fact that tactical voting will massively skew the proportions and further distort the outcome and make it difficult for proportional representation to work effectively.

Mr. Syms: One of my reasons for being a great supporter of first-past-the-post is that it leaves greater discretion at constituency level with electors. If they wish to vote in a specific way, perhaps not particularly for their first preference but for a Liberal Democrat or a Labour candidate to defeat my party, that is their choice. Inevitably, there will be some variation in seats, but, in 40 constituencies, the swings and roundabouts would mean that the vote would not differ much when all the results were added. In Brecon, the tactical vote may go one way, but the seat next door may go in a completely different way. The totality of the vote would show a close correlation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point is material.

Mr. Swayne: At the risk of taxing the patience and good will of the Secretary of State, particularly in this age of new politics and consensus, may I say that he rather overplayed the argument that the amendment addresses a problem that is largely a figment of Conservative imagination? That was certainly not the case in the other place. Lord Falconer of Thoroton said:
My Lords, the Government have thought carefully about this. They are aware of the problem…Plainly, if someone provides a solution that deals with all the problems the Government will certainly think about it. They have given considerable thought to it. We do not have a closed mind,".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 272.]
It is the height of irresponsibility to acknowledge that there is a problem with the legislation and to rely on the Opposition and other parties to address the solution. However, the solution having been addressed, it has been decided to reject it.
The second point that the Secretary of State was determined to labour was the minuscule probability of split-ticket voting, but that is not the perception of their lordships. Lord Bledisloe said:
My Lords,… I think I now see that there is a real problem, certainly mathematically. I am also prepared to accept that it is a problem that is not just mathematical but is real, because from these Benches I am perfectly prepared to believe that any political party will commit any dirty trick which it thinks will be to its own advantage."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1998; Vol. 592, c.269.]
We all accept that no political party in the House today would indulge in that sort of activity. However, the Secretary of State described the pressures that led to tactical voting at the last general election. Does he suddenly believe that this new age of consensus and good will has banished those pressures for ever? Does he believe that future political leaders under those pressures will not institute just such a form of voting to achieve the desired ends? Of course that is possible, so it is right that we should try to deal with the issue now.
The right hon. Gentleman's principal argument against the amendment is that it would undermine the democratic integrity of the voting system. That is nonsense. AMS was introduced to address the overall proportionality of the votes. That will be guaranteed by the amendment.

7 pm

Mr. Ron Davies: We have had an interesting debate and I think that we all understand the issues involved in the Lords amendment. I still believe that what the other place is suggesting is unfair and discriminatory. It does not deal with the problem of alter ego parties, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). All parties in the House have given undertakings, and we all accept them. None of the existing political parties will become involved in the collusion that has been suggested. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, given Wales and Welsh politics, if that were to happen it would be quickly exposed and immediately reviled by the people of Wales. It would not be successful.
The amendment strikes at the heart of an important part of devolution—the settlement that we have and the new democratic arrangements that we are proposing for the Assembly. It is contrary to the mandate that was given to all politicians from Wales at the general election and contrary to the wishes of the people of Wales as expressed in the referendum. Therefore, I believe that the House should reject the amendment.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 21 and Government amendment thereto agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 22 disagreed to.

Clause 12

DISQUALIFICATION FROM BEING ASSEMBLY MEMBER

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 8, line 9, at end insert
(", or
(e) he is a Minister of the Crown.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take amendment (a) in page 28, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) A Minister of the Crown may not—

(a) be elected to be Assembly First Secretary, or
(b) be appointed as an Assembly Secretary.'.

Mr. Hain: I will speak briefly at this stage in the hope of replying more fully to the debate later.
First, let us be clear about the terms of the Lords amendment. The entire argument by the Conservative peers who backed it was whether the Secretary of State for Wales could also be the National Assembly's First Secretary. They were particular about that, to the point of obsession. However, the amendment does not specify that. It does not even specify that the Secretary of State should be barred from being a member of the Assembly Executive; it seeks to determine who should be a Member of the Assembly itself.
I freely acknowledge that quite different constitutional functions will be exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Secretary of the National Assembly.

We have never suggested that they could or should be exercised by the same person in perpetuity. What we have here is a smokescreen of concern, hyped up into a frenzy and disguising a blatantly political exercise to dictate to the people of Wales for whom they may or may not vote.
If the people wish to elect a Minister of the Crown as an Assembly Member, that is their right. Why should this House deny them that right? I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Dr. Fox: The arguments on the issue have been put clearly both here and in the other place, so there seems little point in detaining the House unnecessarily by reiterating them.
This is not just an exercise in political posturing, as the Under-Secretary suggested; it is about a point of principle. To understand what lies behind the Lords amendment and our amendment in lieu we have to look at two matters. First, what is the role of a Member of the Assembly; and secondly, what is the role of a Minister of the Crown?
First, the direct constituency Assembly Members have to do what we understand clearly in this House, which is to look after our constituents' interests as well as scrutinising the wider picture. Secondly, those on the party list will have to look after the general interests, under whatever arrangements they come to within their parties or relating to whatever constituency interest may be pertinent. Thirdly, all Members will have to scrutinise the political life of Wales independently, just as hon. Members are supposed to do in this House.
We have also to consider the role of Ministers of the Crown. The Prime Minister published a ministerial code in July 1997. The first principle set out is:
Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility.
The second is:
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Step Agencies.
The eighth principle is:
Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their role as Minister and constituency Member.
I shall deal with the last principle first. Those of us who have been Ministers know that a great deal of discipline is required to keep ministerial and constituency roles separate. In many Departments, there is potential for the roles to overlap, so Ministers require a great deal of self-discipline to keep them separate. How much more difficult would that be if another role were added—ministerial, constituency and Assembly roles, all at the same time? There are phenomenal dangers in creating potential for conflicting interests.
The part of the code that deals with the
policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Step Agencies
creates another difficulty. A Minister of the Crown may sit in a Welsh Assembly and be responsible not only for the scrutiny of, for example, United Kingdom-wide agencies, but for the agencies' actions in Wales. That is utterly preposterous. Upholding collective responsibility is the most difficult responsibility.
The Under-Secretary referred to the First Secretary. What could be more preposterous than having to be First Secretary and a Minister of the Crown at the same time? What is he supposed to do—write to himself,


"Dear Secretary of State, I find myself in my position of First Secretary in the Assembly needing a bit more money so could you please arrange this for me because I am finding it awfully hard? Yours, the First Secretary." Then he has to write back to himself saying, "Dear First Secretary, Unfortunately, due to my collective responsibility in the Cabinet, my Treasury colleagues tell me that I am not able to discuss this with you. Yours, the Secretary of State."
Perhaps that will be the ultimate job share—or, in the lingo of the Welsh Labour party, the ultimate twinning. However, it seems to those of us who live in the real political world that that is extraordinary politics and will create incompatibility on a scale that we have never known in the House of Commons. It is not a point of party politics; it is a point of principle. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that he could not stand to be the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament while being Secretary of State for Scotland, because that would be a conflict of interest. If that is true of devolution in Scotland, why is it not true of devolution in Wales? If it is a point of principle for the Secretary of State for Scotland, why is it not one for the Secretary of State for Wales? It does not matter whether one holds the posts for a week or a year; a point of principle is involved.

Mr. Livsey: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the crucial difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is that the Scottish Parliament has primary legislative powers. It is a totally different situation from that which will obtain in Wales.

Dr. Fox: In the previous debate—about alter ego parties—I wondered whether we were talking about the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, but I realise now that they are playing their usual welcome-mat role for the Labour party.
We are debating a matter not of degree but of principle—that there would be a conflict of interest, and one cannot serve two masters. If one is to represent someone in one body, one cannot be bound by collective responsibility in another. Such an arrangement—especially given the nature of the Welsh devolution settlement—would be constitutional nonsense. The Government would do well to accept now that it would be nonsense—before they land themselves in the hot water that they will so richly deserve if they do not accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I oppose Lords amendment No. 27, which is based on a narrow-minded personal vindictiveness towards my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Wales. I therefore support the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 27.
Inclusivity is a fundamental aim and principle of the Assembly. Inclusivity is essential to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales reflects all the political and cultural traditions in Wales and that it gives fair representation to women; to minority ethnic groups; to north, south, east and west Wales; to Welsh-speaking and non-Welsh-speaking areas; and to areas that voted yes in the referendum and to those that voted no.
Another principle was to ensure that experienced and high-calibre candidates stand for the Assembly and that Members of the House of Lords should themselves be free to stand for the Assembly. Although the Lords cannot stand for this House or even vote in parliamentary elections, they will be able to be Members of both the House of Lords and the National Assembly for Wales. I therefore cannot accept the Lords intention of preventing hon. Members and Ministers from standing for or holding office in the Welsh Assembly. There is no constitutional reason why a Minister of the Crown cannot be a Member of the Welsh Assembly.
It would be wrong also to assume that there would be any conflict of interest. Ministers, and Ministers of the Welsh Assembly, will be accountable to both bodies and will be judged on their integrity by their own electorate. As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said, there are good reasons why such a dual mandate should be encouraged and given in a transitional period, to ensure continuity and co-ordination in the establishment of the new National Assembly for Wales.

Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference between being an hon. Member and being a Minister of the Crown? One is about independent scrutiny of the Executive whereas the other is about being a member of the Executive.

Mr. Edwards: I say again that individuals' integrity will dictate how they should conduct themselves.
I have read the speech made in the other place by Lord Crickhowell. I think that it was a highly personal and spiteful attack that was not worthy of someone who has been Secretary of State for Wales and involved in public life since that time. I shall make no personal comment on Lord Crickhowell.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Why not?

Mr. Edwards: If I had more time, I would pay a long, glowing tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for all that he has done to ensure that the Bill gets through not only the House but—perhaps more important—through the Wales Labour party. However, there is not time to do so.
I take exception to the right of the unelected House of Lords—especially of the dominant hereditary group in the House of Lords, 62 of whom voted in support of Lords amendment No. 27—to seek to overthrow one of the Bill's important principles. It is a serious indictment of our parliamentary system that we allow people to legislate who have inherited the right to do so—because they are the eldest son of someone who already had the right to be in the other place. We do not allow people to inherit the right to practise or implement the law; how can it be justified that anyone should inherit the right to make or amend the law?
If this debate and the fiasco offer one important lesson, it is that we must swiftly end the hereditary principle: abolish the right of hereditary peers to legislate. I hope that Ministers will act on that as soon as possible.
The principle of inclusivity must allow hon. Members to stand for the Welsh Assembly. I therefore ask the House to reject Lords amendment No. 27.

Mr. Öpik: I should like, first, simply to comment on Conservative Members' persistent failure to understand


what is going on—that politics has moved on in Wales. They do not grasp that the politics of conflict and confrontation can quite reasonably and effectively be replaced by something else: the supremacy of good ideas.
7.15 pm
Let us move on to Conservative Members' rather astounding failure to understand the opportunities presented by giving the new politics a chance and by giving the future Secretary of State for Wales—whoever he or she may be—the chance to participate in both this Chamber and the Welsh Assembly. Allowing the Secretary of State briefly to play both roles is a matter not of principle but of judgment and practical considerations.
Allowing a Secretary of State for Wales also to be First Secretary presents three benefits and two concerns. The first benefit is the expertise, experience and continuity that one person might bring to the job. The second benefit is having essentially a directly elected Cabinet member who will have a considerable vested interest in being a real voice for Wales. The third is the loyalty that that individual would most likely have to Wales. The job of First Secretary will be attractive and it is unlikely that someone would want to compromise it by being a party puppet.
I must, in fairness, say that the Conservatives have raised two legitimate concerns.

Mr. Evans: If one person is both First Secretary and Secretary of State for Wales, he or she will—as Secretary of State for Wales, because of Cabinet collective responsibility—have to attend Cabinet meetings. What if the Assembly wants that person as First Secretary to be somewhere else? He or she will either have to accept Cabinet collective responsibility or speak for the people of Wales in the Assembly and be sacked as a Cabinet member. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that that would be a real problem?

Mr.Öpik: That point was one of the two concerns that I was about to mention, and was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It is a legitimate concern, although it is not sufficient to overcome the benefits of allowing one person to hold both offices.
I think that—without going too deeply into the Cabinet's functions—it should be possible for one person to represent both Wales's interests internally within the Cabinet and the broader public interest. However, as I said, one of the big jobs for whoever might hold both jobs will be to establish etiquette and precedent by temporarily holding the dual position. Then we shall see if he or she is sacked—perhaps because the pressures are too great.

Dr. Fox: I know that the Liberal Democrats have trouble with the matter—it is almost 100 years since any of them was a Minister—but the first point made in the ministerial code is that Ministers must accept collective responsibility. The code has been established by No. 10 Downing street. It will not be for the Secretary of State for Wales to decide on etiquette. A code has already been established and published by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Öpik: Such a one-dimensional approach to profound constitutional changes saddens me, but perhaps goes some way to highlighting why we sometimes have

such a fatuous debate. We must be willing to experiment with new ideas on the assumption that we can make them work. If we cannot make them work, we will have to revisit the ideas and the processes that are failing. However, simply to assume that we must change nothing because of some legitimate concerns and obstacles is to assume that we must always maintain the status quo.
The fact that the Welsh people have voted for the Welsh Assembly and—more to the point—the fact that both the overwhelming majority of hon. Members and all three parties representing constituencies in Wales agree that we want to make the Assembly work should go some way in warning the Conservatives that they are out of kilter with the public mood.
My second concern is the fear of vesting too much power in one person. That is not in itself a problem, but if the individual concerned cannot help behaving in a compromising way, we shall need to review the situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) said, the difficulty would be exacerbated if the Assembly had primary legislative power.
We should be willing to try having both roles held briefly by one person. In the light of experience, it may even turn out not to be a sustainable process, but we will find out soon enough. In the meantime, we have to cut ourselves some slack, try new processes and not be afraid to make a few mistakes. It is prudent to be honest about those concerns and imprudent to try to reduce every debate to simple political attack that does not serve the interests of the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that it is not a matter of going back to the drawing board every time? The politics will have moved on and Plaid Cymru Members will use the impetus and dynamics of that to shift matters further and they will not give a fig about new politics and consensus.

Mr. Öpik: I allowed that intervention as I hoped that it would illustrate graphically everything that I have said about the Conservatives. If they want to be taken seriously in Welsh politics, they had better recognise that things have moved on. The proportional representation train has left Cardiff station and, far from being even on the platform, the Tories have not bought a ticket.

Ms Julie Morgan: I shall be brief. I oppose amendment (a), which is a bit rich coming from the Conservative party. We should extend the franchise for Assembly Members as widely as possible. There is no reason why a Minister of the Crown should not stand and be elected to the Assembly, as the Lords amendment provides. In respect of any dual mandate, the issue is what happens afterwards, but I believe that it is a matter for political parties to sort out and that it should not be enshrined in legislation.
In my view, any dual mandate should be for the shortest possible time. There are strong feelings in the Labour party against any dual mandates. There are two main reasons for that. First, we want people to be elected who are committed to the Assembly and not doing another job with different responsibilities. We told people on their doorsteps during the campaign that membership of the Assembly would be a full-time job requiring total


commitment, bringing power closer to the people of Wales through people who were totally committed to the Assembly. That is why we want people who are committed to one job and one Assembly.
The second reason people in the Labour party are opposed to a dual mandate is that an awful lot of people want to become Assembly Members and think that it is a bit greedy of anyone standing for the Assembly to contemplate doing two jobs when so many are keen to do one. As there are only 60 seats, we are only grudgingly willing to contemplate a dual mandate for right hon. and hon. Members until the next general election in order to avoid by-elections.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is obvious that, in practical terms, a member of the British Cabinet could not be at the same time a Member of the Welsh Assembly or First Secretary for anything other than the shortest transitional period because of the conflicting loyalties that would arise. The First Secretary would be voted in as leader of the Assembly by Assembly Members or by her or his political party—it is a bottom-up approach. She or he would then represent those people. The Secretary of State for Wales is appointed by the Prime Minister and is bound by Cabinet collective responsibility. There is a clear conflict between the two roles, which could not be combined other than for the shortest possible transitional period.
In bringing devolution to Wales, we are bringing democracy and inclusivity. We want to get away from the centralisation of power—and holding two jobs is just that. I am disappointed that we are to have a Cabinet system. It would be quite wrong for a Minister of the Crown to contemplate a dual mandate for longer than the shortest transitional period.
I oppose the amendment; we do not need legislation on something that could happen, but only for the shortest possible time as I know Labour Members are strongly opposed to it.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) made a telling speech that rubbished everything Ministers have said on the issue. She correctly identified the nature of the conflict of interests, but then told the House that it might be allowed to continue for the shortest possible period. She never sought to explain or justify why even the shortest possible period should be allowed. No period should be allowed because the conflict is clear, manifest and unacceptable.
The Government's problem in putting forward their devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales has been their inability to think through the constitutional implications. Inherent in them is the scope for conflict between the way in which the Welsh Assembly runs its affairs, the way in which the First Secretary or other Secretary of the Welsh Assembly decides to operate, and his responsibilities and loyalties and those of a Minister of the Crown at Westminster. I do not welcome that—it was one reason I did not support devolution in the first place—but, to judge from what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, it seems that, for perfectly plain short-term political advantage, there is a refusal to accept the implications of what is being proposed. We cannot have a Minister of the Crown also being an Assembly

Member—and certainly not being a First Secretary or other Secretary in that Assembly. There has to be a division and that division should be accepted.

Mr. John Hayes: Is my hon. Friend saying that we are dealing with mechanics of government that are not based on a sound constitutional settlement and political theory, and that political theories are being made up on the hoof after the mechanics have been put in place?

Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely. That is quite apparent from our earlier debate about the Official Secrets Act 1989 and its application to the First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries. The matter simply has not been thought through, but at least we can try to do something about it. The first step is to ensure that amendment is accepted, if not in the form proposed by the House of Lords, at least in the more limited form proposed by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Alan Williams: First, may I make it clear that I perfectly respect the aspirations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to stand as a First Secretary and I wish him and the others who are standing well? However, that is not the issue. I regret that there has been an attempt to dismiss the matter with some quite irrelevant comments as it strikes at the heart of the constitutional basis of Cabinet government.
Under Cabinet government, there is Cabinet responsibility and Cabinet accountability. If a Minister cannot accept what the Cabinet decides, he or she must leave the Cabinet. With all respect to my right hon. Friend, how on earth can he give his full loyalty to a separate Assembly that may have different perspectives—although it may have the same political background—on policy, expenditure and so on? How can he give equal loyalty to each or full loyalty to either? When he steps out of No. 10 and is interviewed by the BBC and HTV, how will we know which hat he is wearing? When he disagrees, how will we know whether he is speaking for the Assembly and when he is speaking for the Assembly, how will he preserve Cabinet responsibility and accountability?
There is already a problem in that my right hon. Friend has announced that he is standing because every decision he takes between now and next May could influence the choice of leader. There is already a conflict of interests. If my right hon. Friend had announced that he was going for a commercial job that would depend on the decisions that he made as a Minister, he would have to stand down. That may be something that he has to consider in his own interests if he wants to pursue his other ambition.
It would be bad for Wales if we ended up with what in America would be called a lame duck president. We do not want a lame duck Secretary of State who cannot take unpopular decisions between now and May because they may prejudice his chances. I hope that that danger will be avoided, but it has to be perceived.
There is also the question of appearance. We have just had a referendum on whether there should be an Assembly. We are now giving the appearance of London trying to impose a leader on that Assembly. What a fine start to devolution—the London Cabinet has to have its hands on the helm. That cannot be right. My right hon. Friend should consider that.
My right hon. Friend may argue that this is a question of helping with one or two teething troubles. If he were the First Secretary of the Assembly, the wisdom of Ron would be available to the Assembly regardless of whether he was Secretary of State.
My right hon. Friend is lucky that he is among friends today. In an interview with HTV last week, I was asked whether I thought he was trying to influence the choice of leader unfairly. I had to say that the thought had not crossed my mind, but others are not as generous. I can think of no reason other than personal expediency for supporting the proposed course of action. I urge my right hon. Friend to change track now and make the right decision.

Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is a good colleague and a neighbouring Member of Parliament. He has fallen into the trap that the Conservatives have laid. I regret that very much.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) talked about an ultimate job share. Conservative Members are experts in ultimate job shares. Their Front-Bench Members persist in holding other jobs outside the House. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) indulged in transparently mischievous comments that did not address the issues.
Nobody seriously argues that the same person can be Secretary of State for Wales and Assembly First Secretary in perpetuity. It would be politically unacceptable and constitutionally undesirable. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) are pertinent on the issue of a long-term dual mandate.

Dr. Fox: Is not that precisely the point? If the situation is constitutionally undesirable, what difference does it make whether it lasts for a month or a year? If the principle is wrong, is not the time scale irrelevant?

Mr. Hain: If the hon. Gentleman had waited a moment, I would have explained the facts of political life to him and he would have realised that there is a difference between permanency and a transitional period. There is a very strong case for a transitional period, particularly at the beginning when the Assembly is bedding down and the order transferring the functions of the Secretary of State has still to be implemented. There is a great deal of sense in having some continuity in the interests of stability and good government.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) talked about potential conflict. If there were conflict, it would have to be resolved. If that conflict could not be resolved, there would have to be a resignation from one post. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West insults my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he imagines that he could ever be a lame duck First Secretary of the National Assembly or Secretary of State—he has demonstrated his abilities over the past year.
The Conservative Lords amendment is not about the Secretary of State.

Mr. Wigley: We almost all reject the Lords amendment because it would not allow any Minister to stand, but does the Under-Secretary understand that many of us would be

uneasy about the prospect of any long-term dual mandate? Can he assure us that, to meet the points that have been made from both sides of the House, the Government would be prepared to consider an amendment in another place that would limit any dual mandate to the time necessary for the transitional orders?

Mr. Hain: No, we would not be willing to consider that. The right hon. Gentleman has played a constructive role in the passage of the Bill through both Houses. I caution him against falling into a Conservative trap.

Mr. John Smith: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the track record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, is not that the point? Let us put on record the reality behind the vindictive and pernicious amendment, which comes from a failed former Secretary of State for Wales and is directed at one who has an excellent track record.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully.
The Conservative Lords amendment is not about the Secretary of State. That is the main issue before us. The amendment puts a blanket ban on any Minister being a Member of—and maybe even standing for—the Assembly. The Conservative Lords have not thought through the consequences of their proposal. It is difficult to imagine, but if the Conservatives won the next general election and a Conservative Assembly Member were elected to the House of Commons, there could be a ban on his being appointed to ministerial office at least until he had resigned from the National Assembly. If the person in question were Rod Richards—I take his name at random—perhaps that would be a good idea and in the interests of the Conservatives. I discovered him loitering with intent on the pavement outside the Welsh Office last week, taking an interest in our affairs. There may be no other Conservative Member elected from Wales. Perhaps that is why the Conservatives are so keen on the issue. Perhaps it is not a Ron amendment, but a Rod amendment to prevent his being put in that position.
Let us consider the issue another way round. Consider a serving Minister who wanted to stand for election to the Assembly in May, but was taking a Bill through the House to Royal Assent in the summer before standing down from a Government post. That person would be prejudiced from standing for the National Assembly. A Minister who was seeing out a British presidency of the European Union to the end of June would not be able to stand for election to the Assembly in May. The Lords have clearly not considered such transitional arrangements, which would be prejudiced by their amendment, which we reject.
Imagine a Conservative or Liberal Democrat First Secretary of the National Assembly who stood for the Commons and was appointed Secretary of State in a new Administration. There might be a new approach to devolution that would require some transitional arrangements. That would be blocked if the amendment were passed. Consider a further transfer of functions in the next century. Perhaps broadcasting might be transferred to the Assembly. A Welsh Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could usefully be an Assembly Secretary—not in the long term, but on a transitional basis. Others with inside experience of Whitehall as a Transport Minister or an Industry Minister


would have invaluable experience for the post of Assembly Secretary, taking forward policies with maximum consultation and agreement.
We could consider the situation in reverse. A Welsh Secretary could have a great deal to contribute to a Whitehall ministerial post on a transitional basis. Such cross-fertilisation would be constitutionally and politically useful. Many other unforeseen circumstances could be blocked off if we put a rigid straitjacket in the Bill, as the Tory amendment would. It could be extremely damaging; it could prevent talented people from making a contribution to the good government of both Westminster and Wales.
Why is Wales being made a scapegoat? No such rule is proposed for Scotland, Northern Ireland, the European Parliament or local councils. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) that amendment (a) is just a vehicle for another petty, spiteful attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Conservatives cannot attack his policies on schools, health, jobs and housing because they are very popular. They cannot attack his historic role in establishing the Assembly because that, too, is popular. Even Tories are falling over themselves to stand for it. The Conservatives cannot cope with a Secretary of State who is popular in Wales for the first time in 19 years.

Dr. Fox: No such amendment has been tabled to the Scotland Bill because the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that no transition period is required and that he will not be standing as Secretary of State and First Minister. Why is that not so for Wales?

Mr. Hain: Since the hon. Gentleman has just taken a new job that he claims to be able to do, he, of all people, should know that the Scottish situation is different from the Welsh situation; that is why. The Bills are different and the powers exercised by the Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are different. He must acknowledge that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the Minister to mislead the House? No Member of the European Parliament can hold any office in any Parliament or Assembly. That is why the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) could not take the job in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hain: The Conservatives are so used to Secretaries of State being unpopular in Wales that they find it difficult to comprehend somebody who holds the office being able to wander around the Royal National Eisteddfod, for example, without a phalanx of bodyguards protecting him, or mingle at the Royal Welsh show with demonstrating farmers who welcome rather than abuse him. The Conservatives cannot cope with a people's Secretary of State.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not out of sycophancy—I leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)—

but out of admiration for his work. He is choosing willingly to leave a Cabinet post—one of the highest posts in the Government, to which most Members of Parliament aspire only in their dreams. He is giving that up—at some point in the future—and is prepared to take a salary cut and all the reductions in status that his self-removal from the Cabinet will entail in order to help give birth to Wales's new democracy. Unlike Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must be given a hearing.

Mr. Hain: Unlike many others whom we can imagine, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not making any presumptions about his position in the Assembly. He is standing in order to take part in the creation of the new and vibrant democracy in Wales. Instead of being denigrated, he ought to be congratulated on that.
I pay tribute to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fought many difficult battles—sometimes even in the tortuous labyrinths of the Welsh Labour party, and at other times—coaxing and persuading a hesitant Welsh nation into greater self-confidence and common citizenship. Notwithstanding the sniping of Conservative Members, Lord Crickhowell said of my right hon. Friend on 15 July:
I wish the present Secretary of State for Wales well. I admire the way in which he has carried the legislation to this point; it is a considerable achievement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 370.]
I am sure that, on reflection, even Lord Crickhowell accepts that his authorship of the amendment was misconceived.
Apart from on this matter and a few others, the Lords have shown much greater intelligence and responsibility than the Conservative Opposition in this House, as a reading of the debate shows. After the assurances that I have given, and considering the problems with the amendment that I have identified, I am sure that their lordships will not want to put a road block across the passage of the Bill and that, instead, they will allow Wales's exciting new democracy to grow and flourish on schedule, as we are determined it should.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 27 be made—[Dr. Fox.]

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 265.

Division No. 344]
[7.44 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brady, Graham


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Bercow, John
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cash, William


Blunt, Crispin
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Body, Sir Richard



Boswell, Tim
Chope, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia







Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Madel, Sir David


Collins, Tim
Maples, John


Colvin, Michael
Mates, Michael


Cran, James
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Curry, Rt Hon David
May, Mrs Theresa


Dafis, Cynog
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Paisley, Rev Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Paterson, Owen


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fraser, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Garnier, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gill, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Shepherd, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Streeter, Gary


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert


Hayes, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Horam, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, William


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tredinnick, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Trend, Michael


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trimble, Rt Hon David



Tyrie, Andrew


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Viggers, Peter


Key, Robert
Walter, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wardle, Charles


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wells, Bowen


Lansley, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


Leigh, Edward
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Letwin, Oliver
Whittingdale, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lidington, David
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Willetts, David


Loughton, Tim
Wilshire, David


Luff, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Woodward, Shaun


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


MacKay, Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Stephen Day and



Mr. Nigel Waterson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Austin, John


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Begg, Miss Anne


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F


Atherton, Ms Candy
Benton, Joe


Atkins, Charlotte
Bermingham, Gerald





Berry, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blackman, Liz
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blizzard, Bob
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gunnell, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Hain, Peter


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Browne, Desmond
Hanson, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Healey, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Byers, Stephen
Hepburn, Stephen


Caborn, Richard
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hinchliffe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cann, Jamie
Hoey, Kate


Caplin, Ivor
Hood, Jimmy


Caton, Martin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Hurst, Alan


Coaker, Vernon
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Colman, Tony
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corbyn, Jeremy



Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Crausby, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Cummings, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Keeble, Ms Sally


Darvill, Keith
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davidson, Ian
Kemp, Fraser


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kidney, David


Dawson, Hilton
Kilfoyle, Peter


Denham, John
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dobbin, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kingham, Ms Tess


Doran, Frank
Laxton, Bob


Dowd, Jim
Lepper, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Edwards, Huw
Linton, Martin


Efford, Clive
Livingstone, Ken


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Ennis, Jeff
Lock, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Love, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flint, Caroline
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Follett, Barbara
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Fyfe, Maria
McIsaac, Shona


Gapes, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gardiner, Barry
McNamara, Kevin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McNulty, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
MacShane, Denis


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mactaggart, Fiona


Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goggins, Paul
Mallaber, Judy






Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Savidge, Malcolm


Martlew, Eric
Sawford, Phil


Maxton, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Merron, Gillian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michael, Alun
Singh, Marsha


Milburn, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mudie, George
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stringer, Graham


O'Hara, Eddie
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Olner, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Ms Sandra
Temple-Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pendry, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Perham, Ms Linda
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Vis, Dr Rudi


Powell, Sir Raymond
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Purchase, Ken
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rapson, Syd
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wise, Audrey


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony


Rogers, Allan
Wray, James


Rooker, Jeff
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. David Jamieson and


Ruane, Chris
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Nigel Evans and Mr. Jon Owen Jones; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [17 July].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

STATUS OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 without the Assembly giving its consent by a cross—community vote as defined in section 4(5).'.
As hon. Members and those who have been following the debate will be aware, the Bill strikes at the very heart of the Union. The Union rests on the sovereignty of this Parliament. When the Government of Ireland Act 1920 came into effect and the southern and northern parts each got a Parliament, a declaration was made in the Act that this Parliament was sovereign and controlled the jurisdiction of all of Ireland at that time. When the south of Ireland changed, having violated the treaty that it entered into, and became, first, the Irish Free State and then the Irish Republic, amendments were made to the Act. However, the Government of Ireland Act continued to declare the authority of this House as supreme and sovereign over Northern Ireland. That is done away with in clause 2, which repeals the Act.
Clause 2 states:
this Act shall have effect notwithstanding any other previous enactment.
That goes back to the 1800 Act of Union and before that. I should be delighted if the Minister stood up and gave the lie to Bertie Ahern's statement in the Dail, when he said that the British were now out of the equation because they had been content to do away with the 1920 Act and would introduce a Bill—this Bill—that would make all the other Acts subservient to it. An axe has been taken to the root of the Union. No amount of argument can take away that fact, which is on the face of the Bill.
All that stands between us and a united Ireland is not legislation in this House but a vote in a poll that will take place when the Secretary of State decides. No elected person in Northern Ireland will have any say about that. The Secretary of State can say, on a whim, "I shall have a poll, which will be a one-way street. You can vote either to become part of a united Ireland or to remain within the United Kingdom." No other option will be given.
There must be a safeguard, which is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled the amendment. We have heard the Minister of State praising the Assembly. He has been saying how great it is that the Bill will give responsibility to the elected people of Northern Ireland and that there is a democratic deficit that the Government are tackling. Why not therefore trust the Assembly on the great issue of the Union? Why should not the Assembly have the opportunity not only to advise the Secretary of State on that issue but to do so on the same basis—the consensus principle—that has been devised to make a majority a minority in the Assembly and a minority a majority?
As the Minister knows well, the votes in the Assembly must be a majority of the Unionist-registered Members and a majority of the nationalist-registered Members. Now, all that will be needed to change everything that the Bill is setting up and everything else in Northern Ireland is a simple majority of one. If there is a majority of one in the referendum, Northern Ireland will immediately go down the line to a united Ireland. We do not know what preservation there will be for the Unionists in Northern Ireland. There are no safeguards or recommendations. We shall simply have a united Ireland.
We are arguing that a safeguard should exist for the people of Northern Ireland. The nationalists will be represented. The second Minister, or as the Bill tells us, the nationalist Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—will be in the Assembly. He makes many recommendations. He will give us a new House of Lords—all the members of the new civic forum will be picked by two men. That is better than the House of Lords, as at least there will be even odds about who will be a member. All that will be in the charge of two men. On that issue, not even the First Minister, the Prime Minister of the Unionists, or the second Minister, the Prime Minister of the nationalists, will have any say.
This Committee should say tonight, "We think that the Assembly should be consulted on such a vital issue. If consensus, or the basis of consensus, cannot be reached in that Assembly, how can there be majority support in the country?"
There may be repetition of such referendums, but even the first time that such a vote takes place—I know that there is a condition that another cannot take place for 10 years—it will have a destabilising effect on the whole Province. The Province will suddenly be plunged into a referendum after all the commotion that we have had on this Bill. The Committee should be wise and say, "Yes, the Assembly should have the opportunity to vote on a referendum and, if the vote is in favour, then by all means that referendum should be held."

Mr. Peter Robinson: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). It deals with the issue that is most critical and central to politics in Northern Ireland—whether Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom or whether it is to become part of a united Ireland.
My hon. Friend has already said that there is a limitation on the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland—they can move only in one direction. They cannot, for example, choose a form of dominion status, which is the kind of constitutional future that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) once advocated. I still have the documentation on that. Other options for an independent Ulster could still be open to the people of Northern Ireland, but not under the Bill.
Under the Bill, the people of Northern Ireland are allowed only to go into a united Ireland or remain in the United Kingdom. They can remain in the United Kingdom not like other citizens, but in a transitional form as they move gently out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland ascribed for them in clause 1. Only one option is offered to them in the clause because the whole purpose of the Bill is to lead towards that very option. The Bill's

purpose is to take the people of Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland. The provision of clause 1 is to make that come about at the appropriate time. Nowhere in the Bill does it state how the Secretary of State is to determine when the moment has come to call a poll for that purpose.
The Secretary of State will be able to look at the election results and say, fairly clearly, how many Unionists there are and what votes Unionists and nationalists have. Therefore, we have to take ourselves forward to that moment in time when the Secretary of State tots up the votes for Unionists and the votes for nationalists and discovers that half a dozen more nationalists have voted than Unionists. No doubt, at that moment in time, the pressure will come from nationalists for the Secretary of State to call a poll under what will then be the Act. If the Secretary of State were to give in to that pressure, he would end up with a narrow result one way or the other.
Does anyone really believe that, if the Secretary of State is required by the Bill, on the basis of a handful of votes of a majority, to put Northern Ireland into a united Ireland, that will provide a peaceful future for the people of Northern Ireland? It is a preposterous thought, but it is what the Bill requires the Secretary of State to do at that moment in time.
The amendment puts a more sensible proposal before the Committee. It acknowledges that, on every other issue, the Government recognise in the Bill that there is a division in Northern Ireland that requires more than a simple majority for decisions to be taken. Why should the majority outlined in the Bill to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom be a majority of a simple variety? If it is right within the Assembly to have a consensus vote on some planning, health or agricultural matter, why is it not required for the crucial issue of the future of the Union itself? If the amendment were accepted, we would have reached the stage where a significant majority had supported the concept of a united Ireland, so we could move towards that knowing that there would not be the deep divisions that would otherwise occur.
Clearly, the statistics are such that it may never occur. This is my 20th year in the House and, in each of those years, I have been told that a united Ireland is just around the corner. If it is simply to be left to the arithmetic in Northern Ireland, it is no closer today than it was 20 years ago.

Mr. David Winnick: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman refers to those on the Government Benches when he says that he has been told that a united Ireland is just around the corner. I wonder who put forward that view. I have always taken the view that, if there is to be a united Ireland, it will be long in the future. I have never for one moment believed that there would be a majority in Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future for the kind of state to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am surprised. Can the hon. Gentleman name any Labour Member who has said otherwise?

Mr. Robinson: I shall answer that question, Mr. Haselhurst, in so far as you will allow me to go outside the terms of the amendment. The reality is that the Government's policy is based on the premise of the


inevitability of a united Ireland. They would not follow the policy that they have at present if they did not believe that that was the direction in which the Province was heading. I do not simply blame the Labour Government for that. They were not the first ones to push down that road. That was the policy being pursued by their predecessors in government.
The principle behind the amendment is that it should take more than a simple majority for Northern Ireland to be put out of the United Kingdom, and for a poll which can be divisive in itself, to be held, there clearly is an advantage in having a weighted majority—if one can put it that way—within the Assembly suggesting to the Secretary of State that it is now time for her, or for him as the case may be, to call a vote.
The amendment should commend itself to the Committee, particularly as there are those, like the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who feel that a united Ireland is not something which will happen quickly and that one should take a moderate line on the position. Here is the opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to support us by voting for the amendment.

Mr. Desmond Browne: Without entering into a debate on the merits of the amendment, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the amendment contains a reference to a cross-community vote as defined in clause 4(5), when that clearly can be defined only by reference to the designation of nationalists or Unionists in terms of the Assembly and when the vote that is envisaged in clause 1 would be a vote by the voters of Northern Ireland who would not all be members of the Assembly nor designated?

Mr. Robinson: The amendment says that a motion in the Assembly would have to be passed by a cross-community vote under clause 4(5) to advise the Secretary of State that the appropriate time had come for her to call the poll of the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will see another amendment in my name which recommends, much on the basis of the Scottish and Welsh referendums in the past, that a majority of the electorate is required, as opposed to a simple majority, when the referendum is held.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) say that they cannot see a majority favouring a united Ireland. Nevertheless, they still want belt and braces to protect their position. That is slightly illogical. They advocate a dictatorship by a minority. Under the amendment, an overwhelming majority of at least 60 per cent. for a united Ireland would be blocked if a majority in one of the cross-community bodies did not want to be part of a united Ireland. That is the purpose of the amendment and that is completely undemocratic.
There is a great deal of difference between the nature of the Assembly and the nature of the decisions that the Assembly will be taking on a cross-community basis and those affecting the future of the Union. If such an amendment were agreed, it would be dangerous because

it would result in a dictatorship by a minority within the community as a whole. The hon. Gentlemen might be happy to think in such terms, but that is what they would achieve.

Mr. William Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is right, but does he accept that almost every decision in the Assembly will be taken under such a system and, therefore, the whole Assembly is undemocratic?

Mr. McNamara: No, I do not accept that because we are talking about a devolved government with a special set of arrangements. The amendment affects the status of Northern Ireland. The Bill provides that, when a majority of the people in Northern Ireland seek the change, it should take place. The amendment suggests that a minority can prevent the wishes of 60 or 70 per cent. of the population being carried forwards.
Yes, that does go to the question of the Union, but the agreement and the legislation have established that the strength of the Union depends not upon the opinions eventually of hon. Members, or indeed of this island, but upon the strength of the opinions of the people in Northern Ireland, whose wishes have been accepted by the people in the Republic of Ireland. Under the agreement, the Union is maintained not by our wishes, but by the wishes of the people of the Republic of Ireland. That is the truth of the agreement. If the hon. Member for North Antrim and his hon. Friends want to maintain such support as they have in Ireland, and if they want to maintain the Union, they must be straight and not fiddle the system, which is what the amendment would do.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The Committee should address some of the fundamental principles of democracy, as they are inherent in the application of the amendment, which I support. It has been suggested—I think that it is accepted in principle—that democracy means majority rule, but not unbridled majority rule. Principles for the protection of minorities are encapsulated in all modern constitutions, particularly written constitutions.
It has been decided that, in Northern Ireland—this is the essence of the agreement and the Assembly that it sets up—there can be no majority decision making or majority democracy, even with built-in protections; there must be equality of treatment. That is why we have a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, who are elected jointly and who will fall jointly; it is why every important decision requires consensus in both communities, even though, numerically and electorally, one of the communities is significantly smaller than the other. An accommodation based on consensus has been accepted as the price that has to be paid for agreement.
On the most fundamental issue of all—whether Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom or departs into a united Ireland—the ordinary principles of democracy and majority decision making are imposed. In other words, we may not have a majority decision about anything Unionist, but a final and unalterable decision that may be made at any time by a nationalist majority—to abandon for all time the British link and the Union and become part of a united Ireland—may be decided on a single vote. That is a dramatic reversal.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out, a simple majority of one vote on a border poll that is called as and when the Secretary of State wants is enough to transform Northern Ireland, removing it from the United Kingdom and making it part of a united Ireland. The Bill may indeed advocate that, but the reality is that such a course of action would be a recipe for absolute disaster. As the date for the vote approached, the whole population would be on their starting blocks, ready to take whatever action—perhaps violent—that they thought necessary.
The amendment would not give the Secretary of State such unbridled power. It would allow her to test, through the elected Assembly, whether there was a real consensus for a border poll to be called. It conforms to the consensus principle that many people are prepared to accept and which applies to every other issue. If such a consensus could be obtained in the Assembly, it is likely that the border poll would be carried by a majority that was large enough to have what could be described as political efficacy.

Mr. McNamara: As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's position, he is against the Bill and against the agreement. However, under legislation that applied before the agreement, border polls could be carried by a majority of one. If he votes for the amendment, he will be voting for principles that are contained in existing legislation and in clause 1—there would be no alteration of the status quo.

Mr. McCartney: I am dealing with the amendment and the current position. I had nothing to do with the constitutional legislation that provided for the 1972 border poll, but if it had been decided then, by one vote or a tiny majority, that Northern Ireland should remain in the United Kingdom, that would have been as unworkable as the current proposals. The fact that the principle was bad in the past is no justification for continuing with it, as it is equally unworkable now.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman did not argue that then.

Mr. McCartney: The suggestion is that I never argued that. I was never called on to argue it; I am simply stating what my view is here and now. If one really wants the principle of consensus to work, one should test it in the Assembly; if there is no consensus among the elected members—on the basis of clause 4(5)—it is unlikely that there will be a majority in the country large enough to have any political efficacy.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: If such a poll was carried out, and delivered the verdict that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted to stay in the United Kingdom, what would the hon. and learned Gentleman say to the majority of the designated nationalists who said that they disagreed? I imagine that he would tell them to get lost, and would he not be right to do so?

Mr. McCartney: With respect, exactly the same principles would apply. The amendment would require, on the same fundamental principles that are contained in

the Bill, a nationalist consensus. If nationalists said that a border poll should not be called, the poll would not be called.
The amendment would work both ways; as elsewhere in the Bill, it would require a consensus on both sides. It would prevent the Secretary of State from making the silly, politically ineffective and dangerous decision of calling a border poll in which there was likely to be a majority of 1 or 2 per cent. either way, which would be unworkable. Northern Ireland is not Wales. Something that may work in Wales on the basis of a fractional majority above 50 per cent. of those voting would certainly not work in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). He may take it as good news that I do not believe that there will be a referendum on the subject for many years to come, if ever. When he talks about the fundamental principles of democracy and majorities and minorities, I respectfully remind him—I do not say this malignly—that one of the main historical arguments, as he knows better than I do, concerns who is the majority and who is the minority. That is why we have to do the best we can in establishing special arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The hon. and learned Gentleman does not address another aspect of fundamental democracy—the Union that he wants to hang on to, that he will hang on to and that we want him to hang on to. That is democracy at the level of the United Kingdom, which is about responsibility to the House of Commons. The amendment focuses on Northern Ireland, but the clause deals with the United Kingdom—it deals with the Secretary of State, the House of Commons and Parliament.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both the previous Prime Minister and the current one emphasised that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to make the decision? That is the basis on which I support the amendment.

Mr. Temple-Morris: That is precisely what it is about. If the Secretary of State, who is answerable to this House, decides that there should be such a referendum—I do not think that I shall see that day—it will be answerable to this House, and it will be a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland.
My next point deals directly with the comments by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). There is great repetition of the claim, and some great belief, that the whole purpose of the legislation is to deliver a united Ireland. There seems to be an underlying fear that everyone south of the border is itching to have the hon. and learned Member for North Down in the Dail rather than here.
I assure the hon and learned Gentleman that there is, in fact, a considerable feeling of relief that he is our responsibility, not theirs. All they want is to deliver peace to their island, which is also the island of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The legislation is not about delivering a united Ireland, but about delivering peace to the island of Ireland. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and others to try to see it from that perspective, because nobody, but nobody, is going to take Northern Ireland away from them.
We are told that, the moment there is a population change in favour of the nationalists, there will immediately be enormous pressure on Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Republic of Ireland. That would be most unwise, and I greatly doubt whether, if there was some minor population change, which would take years to happen in any case, the nationalist community in Northern Ireland would risk reopening the sort of conflict which, by that time, would have been over for many years.
The clause is a good one. The matter is one for the United Kingdom Government of the day to deal with. As a United Kingdom matter, it will be dealt with by the Secretary of State. If we ever get to that stage, although I do not see us reaching it, the Assembly will clearly have a vested interest, because the matter will have left its Members to come up to the level of this place; but it must be dealt with by this House, and by the Government answerable to it.

Mr. Thompson: The amendment deals with one of the fundamental issues about which we as Unionists are greatly concerned. We believe that there are a terrible lot of people who want to put Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) seemed to be saying that that is not true, but perhaps he should speak to his hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and see whether he believes that. I think that the hon. Member for South Down is keen to see a united Ireland; certainly, over the years, he has done his best politically to get a united Ireland.
The idea that nobody wants a united Ireland is nonsense. The reality is that there is a movement to put Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. Those of us who oppose the agreement are persuaded that the rationale behind the agreement is to get rid of us—perhaps not overnight, but gradually, over time, to try to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to join the people of the Republic of Ireland.
As I understand the current arrangements, there could be a border poll, to be decided by a simple majority; but that poll would not be a determinant or definite poll. In other words, the result would have to come here to the House of Commons—to this sovereign Parliament—and it would be for this Parliament to decide what to do about that poll. Clearly, if a majority of the people, or even of the electorate of Northern Ireland, voted to leave the United Kingdom, it would still be for this Parliament to decide what should happen. In other words, the poll would not be a definite decision.
However, under the Bill, when the poll is called the Secretary of State will be under an obligation to carry out the wishes expressed in that poll. That appears to me to be a significant constitutional change, and a weakening of the constitution governing Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that we need an amendment to clarify that position.
We have heard a lot of talk about referendums. Referendums are dangerous things, and a democracy cannot operate under referendums. The question that is asked and the propaganda that is promoted can often influence the result, as we saw during the recent

referendum in Northern Ireland. We live in a parliamentary democracy, so it is up to Parliament, or other democratically elected institutions, to decide issues. We should not have issues decided by referendum.
I believe that to have the Assembly vote on the issue would give a far more representative result than a referendum. That the Secretary of State should exercise the option given in the amendment and put such questions to the Assembly is but an instance of democracy. Therefore, I believe that the Committee should support the amendment.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: We have heard from the supporters of the amendment a novel set of presentations, convoluted in their interpretation of democracy and of figures. It is the first time that I have heard the Unionist family, if I may call them that, indicate that 51 per cent. in support of the Union is not acceptable to them. That assertion has come from several hon. Members who have already clearly indicated that 71 per cent. of a referendum vote by the people of Northern Ireland is not acceptable by turning their faces against that verdict of the people of Northern Ireland and against the implementation of the Belfast agreement. That belies the integrity of the argument about the numbers game. If the time came, and we were foolish enough to accept this amendment, the argument regarding 51 per cent. would be offered for 61 per cent.
The, I hope, devolved Northern Ireland Assembly will deal with subjects that are transferred from this place. Reserve powers will be retained by the Secretary of State and, through her, this place will maintain sovereignty. In that context, there is a great differential between those two concepts. As we are talking about mathematics, we should recognise that cross-community or parallel consensus requires a majority of Unionists and a majority of nationalists, and others, who constitute the whole. A majority of the parts is obviously a majority of the whole, which comprises those parts. The mathematics of the matter erode the substance of the argument advanced by the last few speakers.
I return to the basics. The acceptance of the will of the people of Northern Ireland by Unionists on any matter is always subject to party politics. The will and the wish of the people is seldom the end product that is addressed. That is illustrated clearly by the fact that the anti-agreement Unionist family have rejected totally the 71 per cent. figure—they argue that it was the result of a propaganda machine, deceit, misrepresentation and so on. I have witnessed politics in Northern Ireland for the past several decades, and political life is driven by propaganda. So what is new now? If Unionist Members are insinuating that the people of Northern Ireland are stupid and do not know what they voted for, it is a deep insult to them.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if a simple majority of 51 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted to move into a united Ireland, that would make for social or political peace in Northern Ireland? Is that his argument?

Mr. McGrady: No, it is not. A result of 51 per cent. would indicate what it indicates: 51 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland—the majority—would like to be associated with the rest of Ireland. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) implied that there was


something wrong with people aspiring to a united Ireland achieved through peaceful and democratic means. I see nothing wrong with that. I have lived with that idea and worked towards it all my life through purely democratic, argumentative and persuasive means. Hon. Members may rest assured that I shall continue to do so—even to the point of trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman that that is the most advantageous way for Ireland to advance politically, socially and economically. My party puts on record its opposition to the amendment before the Committee this evening.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): This has been a most interesting debate at the beginning of the Committee's consideration of the Bill. I do not intend to stray into the next batch of amendments, which deal with the question of a majority, but we cannot treat this amendment or those that accompany it in a vacuum.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend and many other right hon. and hon. Members said that the Bill is based upon the agreement for which a majority of people in Northern Ireland voted. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was correct to refer to democracy. However, we must have at the back of our minds what constitutes democracy when it comes to these matters. In this case, democracy means that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted for the agreement. Clause 1, which we are considering and which the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues wish to amend, is part of the agreement—word for word. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to page 3 of the agreement, the top two paragraphs of which are reproduced in subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1. Given that the House of Commons is enacting the agreement, it would not be right for it to change it as suggested.
I do not say that the arguments that have been put forward do not have merit in their own right, but that is overridden by the fact that the political parties in Northern Ireland, and, above all, the people of Northern Ireland, signified their assent to those paragraphs, which are now in the Bill.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The Minister implies that the terms of the agreement were put before the people of Northern Ireland and asserts that the arguments being advanced today are valid in their own right. When the Government sought the people's endorsement, did they put those valid arguments to them?

Mr. Murphy: I said that, for debating purposes, the arguments are valid—of course they are. However, they are consistent with neither the Bill, the agreement nor the spirit of the agreement. The spirit of the agreement is that the Secretary of State should, when she or he thinks fit—this is reproduced in schedule 1—hold a border poll. The gap between the border polls would be no less than seven years. However, no Secretary of State would hold such a poll unless he or she thought that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted a change to be effected. The Secretary of State would then have to come to this House and put that point.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Where in the Bill is the Secretary of State required to come to this House to ask it to hold a border poll? It requires that she ask the House to give effect to what happens as a result of a border poll.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said that the Secretary of State came to this House because she had to. She does not have to; she does so of her own volition.

Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am saying that the result of the poll is then relayed to the House, as it was in the case of the referendums for Wales and for Scotland.
The underlying issue is that of consent. The purpose of discussing whether this provision will take us down the road to a United Ireland is overridden by the fact that the spirit of the agreement and the Bill is based squarely on the consent of the majority of people who live in Northern Ireland. There is nothing more and nothing less than that in it.

Mr. Winnick: Over the past quarter of a century or more, especially when the United States has attempted to give the impression that we are using Northern Ireland as a colony, we have argued that we are respecting the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. Would not the amendment undermine the essence of that argument?

Mr. Murphy: Indeed. We accept that argument in other contexts, too. I do not want an independent Wales or an independent Scotland, but I would accept the wish of the majority of those people if they voted accordingly.
The Bill is clear: the Secretary of State may hold a poll at any time, and she must hold a poll if she thinks that a majority would be likely to vote in favour of a united Ireland. She would hold such a poll only if she thought precisely that, and it would have to be based on a proper assessment of the political circumstances at the time.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The kernel of the Minister's argument is that the agreement has been given the support of the people of Northern Ireland and it must therefore be given legislative effect in its entirety. Yet the notes on clauses say that there are clauses in the Bill that have no relevance to the agreement, because the agreement was silent on many of the issues contained in the Bill. The agreement does not say that the mechanism for putting it into effect cannot be what the amendment proposes. The amendment is not inconsistent with the agreement; it is simply a mechanism that will be brought into play.

Mr. Murphy: The agreement is clear, not only in terms of the clauses that the hon. Gentleman wants to amend, but in respect of schedule 1 to the Bill, which is schedule 1 to the agreement. It states:
The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll".
It is quite right that the ability to hold such a poll should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is the Government's chief representative in Northern Ireland, but the essence of the argument is that the agreement tells us that that should be the case. The parties that met in Belfast said that that should be the case, and the people agreed it. Of course parts of the Bill clarify the agreement, but there is no need to clarify this part: it is crystal clear that the Secretary of State is the person who should have the ability to hold such a poll, and that it should be held on the basis of the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland who vote in it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned the principle of consent.


Despite what has been said from across the way, the Bill is entirely compatible with the objectives of the Welsh and the Scottish legislation.

Mr. Murphy: I understand that. The Bill is based on what the Government are doing throughout the United Kingdom, whether in London, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—we are holding referendums to ask the people what they think.

Mr. Thompson: What would happen if 51 per cent. of those who voted in a referendum voted to go into a united Ireland, and a majority in the Assembly had voted to stay within the United Kingdom? What would the Government do then?

Mr. Murphy: There would be a big disagreement, but there is no doubt that the will of the people must prevail.

Mr. Thompson: Does that mean that the view of an elected Assembly in Northern Ireland in which a majority wanted to stay in the United Kingdom would be rejected, and the view expressed in a referendum would not?

Mr. Murphy: We are getting into awful hypothetical situations. We will discuss the percentage when we come to the next group of amendments. The chief reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment is because it goes against the agreement. As a consequence of that, I ask hon. Members to reject them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What I want to say to the Minister is simple: nothing in the agreement forbids him to accept the amendment. It substantiates the fact that the Secretary of State will have the right to hold a poll, but it also provides that she should consult the Assembly. Surely that does not go against the spirit of the agreement.
I am glad that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has been converted to majority rule—it has come as a tremendous revelation on this vital issue. Labour Members should look to the history of their party. Where did this all come from? It came from Mr. Herbert Morrison and from a distinguished Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Clement Attlee, who took on the Dublin Government, because he was not a bit afraid of them. He decided that the Parliament of Northern Ireland would decide on remaining within the Union.
When the Parliament of Northern Ireland was prorogued, I moved in the House that the issue should come back to the people and should be decided by the majority. Other amendments deal with who are the majority of the people. I remind Labour Members that I sat in the House through intense debates about devolution for Scotland. I remember their saying that they would not accept a majority vote at all, and that a majority of the people of Scotland must vote for devolution. If that was good enough for Scotland on devolution—not on going out of the United Kingdom—surely it is good enough for us to say what we are saying without being hammered down as if we are bigots of some sort.
We must consider this realistically. The Minister referred to Wales and Scotland voting in a referendum on independence. Is he telling me that he would stand at the

Dispatch Box and say to the Scottish people that Scotland would have to leave the United Kingdom immediately if one person provided a majority? Would he come to the House and recommend, as a Minister, that Scotland should get out of the United Kingdom? Would he do the same for his own country? Certainly not—and he knows that. We are presenting an argument that we have a right to present.
Then there is the question of voting in the Assembly. I have heard a good deal about people rejecting the referendum. People rejected the Tory party; does that mean that, having been rejected by the people, the Tory party should not continue to be represented in the House of Commons? The Labour party has been rejected at times; does that mean that the Tories should take its place? We are all democrats. We come back, and we fight in defence of our principles. It is suggested that the line should be "You need not bother to fight, because the people have decided the issue once and for all, and it can never be changed." But politics is about change, and the House should be prepared to listen to people who are democrats.
I could say many things about the referendum. I will say that I do not think it right for a Prime Minister to make promises to the people, and to tell them that those promises will be included in legislation—and I cannot find those promises anywhere in the Bill. I do not think it right to say, in such circumstances, that the result of the referendum should stand.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) says that there may never be a referendum. In that case, why is he voting for one tonight? I asked the former Prime Minister—in the presence of the two other party leaders, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the then right hon. Member for Lagan Valley—to give us a border poll. Such polls were to take place over 10 years; in fact, we had only one. The then Prime Minister said no. When I asked why not, he said, "We know the result, so it is not necessary." When I asked the same question of the present Prime Minister, he said the same. I said, "Why not take the matter to the people? After the people had spoken, you could put the matter aside and get on with the nitty-gritty of politics in Northern Ireland." The Prime Minister said no.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why no one is willing to organise a border poll nowadays is the fact that the question in the schedule in the earlier border poll was so clear and unambiguous that it was not possible for the Government to mislead people by any amount of propaganda? It was a case of a simple yes or no. Is that not why every Government has avoided asking the question ever since?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree. The Prime Minister said that there would be no more border polls on that basis. This is a new border poll, and we do not even know what question will be asked. The original question was
Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?
The issue is simple. Does the Secretary of State make up her own mind, without consulting the House, about the terms involved in a border poll? None of us knows what question will be asked at this point. People are bragging


about the Assembly, saying how important it is and what important people have been elected. Do hon. Members not wonder why 71 per cent. voted for a referendum, and why, although the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has 28 votes in the House, those who oppose what he stands for also have 28? Where did that 71 per cent. go to? According to that, some of us should have been here with half a dozen members.
The House should take a fair view. I welcome the fact that the Minister has already admitted that the Secretary of State need not come to the House until a border poll has taken place.
All my life, I have read that the number of Roman Catholic people is increasing, and that we will be voted out. When I was a boy of 10, I was told that when I was 25 there would be a united Ireland. The other day, the Belfast Telegraph had a huge article, which said that 30 years after the millennium we will be part of the Irish Republic.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going beyond his amendment, and he is bringing in matters that have nothing to do with the amendment.

9 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley: What is the use of having an amendment when the facts fly in the face of the evidence? I shall leave the matter there. This has been a useful debate, and I was interested in some of the comments made. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down. After being convicted of his sins of the past, he now believes in a majority vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 285.

Division No. 345]
[9 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Forsythe, Clifford
Wilkinson, John


McCartney, Robert (N Down)



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Ian Paisley and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. William Thompson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blackman, Liz


Allan, Richard
Blears, Ms Hazel


Allen, Graham
Blizzard, Bob


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bradshaw, Ben


Ashton, Joe
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Austin, John
Buck, Ms Karen


Battle, John
Burnett, John


Bayley, Hugh
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew F
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Casale, Roger


Bermingham, Gerald
Caton, Martin


Berry, Roger
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Betts, Clive
Clapham, Michael





Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hood, Jimmy



Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Colman, Tony
Hurst, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jamieson, David


Cox, Tom
Jenkins, Brian


Crausby, David
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cummings, John



Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dawson, Hilton
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Doran, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kidney, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Efford, Clive
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ennis, Jeff
Laxton, Bob


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lepper, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Livingstone, Ken


Flint, Caroline
Livsey, Richard


Follett, Barbara
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lock, David


Fyfe, Maria
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gibson, Dr Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonnell, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McGrady, Eddie


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Goggins, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gunnell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hancock, Mike
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Harris, Dr Evan
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hesford, Stephen
Michael, Alun


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Milburn, Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin






Moran, Ms Margaret
Singh, Marsha


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Soley, Clive


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Eddie
Stinchcombe, Paul


Olner, Bill
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Öpik, Lembit
Stringer, Graham


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Powell, Sir Raymond
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vis, Dr Rudi


Quinn, Lawrie
Ward, Ms Claire


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert N


Rapson, Syd
Watts, David


Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wicks, Malcolm


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruane, Chris
Wise, Audrey


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Worthington, Tony


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wray, James


Sanders, Adrian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after `But', insert
'subject to subsection (3) below'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 106, in page 1, line 15, at end add—
'(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, "majority" means a majority of 60 per cent. of those voting in such a poll.'.

Mr. Trimble: The issues touched on in amendments Nos. 104 and 106 are similar to those raised in the previous debate, so I shall try to be as brief as possible. Too much time has already been taken.
The point has been made, and I want to underline it, that there is a contradiction between the terms of the agreement, which at so many points put an emphasis on

consensus—in particular, building into the operation of the new institutions in Northern Ireland the weighted majorities and consent within both the nationalists and the Unionists—and a simple majority provision for a border poll on more important issues. It is right to draw attention to those matters.
As was said in the previous debate, that has been the position for some time. The concept of a border poll has existed since 1972, and prior to that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland rested on the consent of the elected representatives. As was pointed out, that extended back to the Ireland Act 1949. Indeed, it goes back to the 1922 Irish Free State (Agreement) Act. To that extent, the Act of Union (Ireland) was modified in 1922, and since then we have been living with the possibility of fundamental constitutional change if the people of Northern Ireland, either through their elected representatives or in a poll, should so desire.
While it has been the position since 1972–73 that the status could change if there were a vote, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made the apt point that up until now all those border polls have been non-binding. Indeed, until now, all the referendums that have been held in the United Kingdom have not been binding.
Clause 1(2) will introduce an obligation on the Secretary of State to make proposals to Parliament to give effect to the results of a referendum. As the clause will place an obligation on the Secretary of State, and therefore make the referendum binding, I thought that it would be appropriate to examine the matter more closely.
There is another reason for focusing on clause 1(2). On my reading of clause 1 and of schedule 1, polls held for the purpose of schedule 1 clearly would not be confined—as some Committee members have suggested—to the question whether Northern Ireland should be transferred to the Republic of Ireland. It is quite clear that—provided that the issue of leaving the United Kingdom is raised—any number of questions could be asked in a poll. Schedule 1 is quite clear on that point. An obligation would be placed on the Secretary of State only when the question arises of going into an all-Ireland state. I therefore thought that it would be appropriate to examine more closely the matter of "a majority".
9.15 pm
In the Assembly's operation, under the concept of cross-community support, we will use a weighted majority of 60 per cent. It is therefore appropriate also to raise the issue of such a majority in a poll. The effect of the amendments is such that only if there is a majority of 60 per cent. in favour of going into an all-Ireland state would there be an obligation on the Secretary of State to introduce proposals. If there were a majority of between 50 and 60 per cent., deciding what to do would be a matter of judgment and of the Government's and the Secretary of State's discretion. They might still wish to give effect to it; they might not.
The provision deals only with the matter of being under an obligation to come to the House and to effect the terms of border polls. In terms of British constitutional development, it is an unprecedented step. In clause 1(2), the Government are taking a further significant step in the development of the United Kingdom constitution, by making the results of a referendum binding on the Government.
It is therefore appropriate to examine more closely the concept of majority, and to operate, by analogy with the agreement's other provisions, a 60 per cent. weighted majority.

Mr. Peter Robinson: My amendment No. 140 would have a similar impact to those tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I have worked out mathematically how, in the referendum—which was a poll of about 81 per cent. of the electorate—a simple majority under his amendments would have been about the same as under my amendment. There is therefore not a great mathematical difference in the outcome of our amendments.
The amendments tabled by me and by the right hon. Gentleman would further draw to the House's attention the issue that we debated when dealing with the previous group of amendments—that deciding a poll to go into a united Ireland on the basis of a simple majority would be a recipe for violence and disaster. Every member of the Committee can visualise and knows that that would be the outcome, yet the Bill contains provisions that—if such a majority were to be achieved at some stage in the future—would bring about that disaster.
My amendment would be better in two ways than those tabled by the right hon. Gentleman. First, my amendment is more consistent with the wording of the agreement, which states:
Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
My amendment is very clear. It refers to a majority of those who are on the electoral register and not simply a majority of those who come out to vote. Indeed, one can visualise circumstances in which a majority in a referendum called for the purposes of making a determination on the issue could represent a significant minority of the people of Northern Ireland. In the circumstances that I outlined earlier, in which a simple majority would cause chaos and disaster, clearly a minority voting for a united Ireland—perhaps a majority of those who came out to vote, but a minority of the people of Northern Ireland—would clearly cause considerable violence in our community and would not produce a peaceful way forward.
The second reason why I believe that my amendment is better is that it is consistent with precedent. There is the precedent of the referendums in Scotland and Wales in which the Government recognised that it was not sufficient to have a simple majority deciding an important constitutional issue, so a majority of the electorate of Scotland and Wales was required to effect such a change.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is aware that, on this occasion, the Welsh referendum made no such stipulation and a decision was made by a simple majority of those who voted.

Mr. Robinson: Earlier today, we saw something of the outcome of that. However, in previous referendums in Scotland and Wales the proposition that I am putting forward was the position.

Dr. Godman: When the hon. Gentleman refers to Scotland, is he talking about the referendum in 1979,

with its weighted majority provision? May I point out to him that that decision, because of the weighted majority, left great disaffection and resentment throughout Scotland? The last referendum on 11 September 1997 was an entirely different affair.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will accept that the result was entirely different, too. If a majority of those voting in Northern Ireland voted for a united Ireland, but they represented a minority of the electorate and the people of Northern Ireland, there would certainly be very bitter resentment.
Under the wording of the agreement, it is not inconsistent for the Government to accept my amendment. It refers to
the majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
As that is not defined in the terms of the agreement, it is open to the Government to define it. My amendment states:
For the avoidance of doubt, in subsection (1)…'the majority of the people of Northern Ireland' means an absolute majority of all those people who, on the date on which a poll is held under this section, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local election in a district electoral area in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: I was in the House at the time of the vote on a weighted majority in the Scottish referendum. It was a Labour amendment to a Government Bill and was carried with the support of the Unionist Tory party. It was a decision of the House that the Government of the day, who no longer had a majority, had to accept. However, it would be quite wrong to suggest that the present Labour Government—or even the Labour Government at the time—had embraced the Cunningham amendment and forced it on the people of Scotland in the way that has been suggested. It was accepted only in order to give the people of Scotland at least an opportunity to voice their opinion.
Anyone who was in the House at the time will remember the bitterness that the amendment engendered, not only in Scotland but generally, about English Members seeking to impose certain conditions on the people of Scotland.

Dr. Godman: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We seem to be discussing the situation in Scotland too much. It is all right to mention it in passing, but we should keep within the terms of the amendment, which are narrower than that. Does the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) want to intervene?

Dr. Godman: I merely wanted to remind my hon. Friend that weighted majorities have unintended consequences, as we discovered in Scotland. The people of Northern Ireland would find the same.

Mr. McNamara: I bear in mind what you have said, Mr. Martin, but you will recall that the burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) drew in aid the previous experience in Scotland, so I thought that the record should be put straight for those who were not fortunate enough to be here on those great and stirring occasions.
The agreement was accepted by many parties. When my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party accepted the agreement, they did not accept the interpretation put forward by the Democratic Unionist party and others. There are many parties to the agreement. It would be wrong to suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could rewrite the agreement without recourse, sense, feeling or discussions with all the other parties.
Under the heading "Constitutional Issues", the agreement says:
The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;
(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".


There is no mention of a weighted majority or the number of people entitled to vote. People understand and accept that that means a simple majority.
I am sure that none of the Unionist Members would insist that they had to have the support of 50 per cent. plus one of all those entitled to vote in their constituency to be able to sit in the House. Many of them are not in that position. If they won an election by one vote, they would not say, "Oh dear me! I cannot go along to the House of Commons and take my seat because I have got a majority of only one vote." We have never decided that a Government should cease to be the Government because they have a majority of only one. That is a foolish argument.
The aim of the amendments is to undermine the agreement. Those who support them want to achieve what they could not achieve by negotiation or by other means: they want to change the agreement as it was written and accepted in the referendum in Northern Ireland. I urge the Committee not to accept the amendments.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall first deal with the lack of logic of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). To suggest that a constitutional change involving the political and national identity of, perhaps, upwards of 1 million people, in a highly charged and emotional situation, is in any way comparable with winning a parliamentary or other election by a small majority—whether it is one, two or 20 votes—indicates the wisdom of the aphorism that logic makes a very good servant but a very indifferent master. There is absolutely no common sense in such a comparison.
The main reason behind the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is to recognise the important constitutional significance of a poll that would change fundamentally and basically that

which most people consider to be of vital importance: their national and political identity. I can think of nothing worse than being a stateless person. To have such a sense of identity is fundamental to all of us; it is where we belong. Changing that sense of identity is so grave and significant that it ought not to be done on the basis of any analogy of winning an election by one vote.
I draw to the attention of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who may have been present at the time—it would have been of much greater importance had the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), the joint Minister designate in the Assembly, been present—that, during the first 14 months of negotiations which gave rise to the agreement, it was recognised by all present that the understanding was that
Any overall package for agreement had to receive not a simple majority on both sides but a majority that would afford political efficacy to such an agreement.
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Upper Bann can confirm that those words were recorded by representatives of the two Governments in the talks. In practical terms, amendment No. 106 reflects that requirement.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that, although a majority of less than 60 per cent. would not represent an absolute ban on action, the matter would still be one for the Secretary of State's discretion. Unless such a majority is achieved, such a decision should not be taken lightly. If the majority is under 60 per cent., the decision to go ahead might be precatory, but, if it is over 60 per cent., the decision to act would be mandatory. To suggest that any Government would blithely, on the most simple of majorities, remove the national political status of 1 million of their citizens is beyond belief. No constitutional and democratic Government should be entertaining that if they intend to bring about what Harold Laski might have described as "social peace" of a substantial section of the community.
In effect, the hon. Member for Belfast, East has suggested an alternative: that the majority should be of those on the electoral roll. Again, comparisons can be odious, but in Wales barely more than 50 per cent. of those on the electoral roll actually voted, and a fraction more than 25 per cent. of those on the electoral roll took the decision, as it turned out, to have devolution for Wales.
As it happened, because of the nature of things in Wales, that was not crucial—but can we imagine a border poll taking place with only 51 per cent. of the electorate turning out to vote, and just over 25 per cent. of the entire population, who none the less form a simple majority of those actually voting, determining to remove the political and national identity of nearly 1 million people?
No one who seriously considered that prospect, and who had in mind the good government and social peace of those who would be affected by the decision, could, in my humble submission to the Committee, conceivably refuse to entertain one or other of the amendments.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) cited the section on "Constitutional Issues" in the agreement, but clause 1(i), which he quoted, refers to recognising
the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".


It does not say a simple majority, a majority of 60 per cent., or a majority of those on the electoral roll. It says:
a majority of the people".
What is more, it was recognised by everyone—I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Hull, North to accept this—that all the parties present, and both Governments, in the negotiations leading up to the agreement, recognised and recorded the fact that the agreement reflecting the overall package had to be supported by more than a simple majority. The majority had to be of such a substantial kind as would lend not only political efficacy but political reality to what is being committed to law. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Dr. Godman: I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and I think he said that a poll determining the future of 1 million people at an emotionally charged moment in the history of those people was not in any way analogous to a contest such as a parliamentary election.
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has a point there, but such a poll is comparable with a referendum in another country of some 5.5 million people. All that I can say, with reference to Scotland, is that our experience of weighted majorities in a referendum prompts me to argue against the amendment.
I can see that the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) is ready to jump to his feet, but in no way do I accept the contention that he offered us; that a referendum is a dangerous thing. In my view, Governments should hold referendums from time to time, as we did in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. Thompson: rose—

Dr. Godman: In a moment.
In terms of the comparative evidence in Scotland, there was a substantial majority for what even the hon. and learned Member for North Down would, I think, acknowledge will be radical constitutional change. That is what is in the Bill before us—radical constitutional change.
I understand some of the fears that have been voiced in connection with the amendments, but my view is that those people should be urged to engage in debate with constitutional nationalists about what has been said over the past few minutes, just as we engage in debate with our peaceable democratic secessionists. There are useful comparisons to be drawn, although I shall not argue for or against the hon. and learned Gentleman's analogy.

Mr. Thompson: I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman. If the Parliament in Scotland decided to have a referendum on whether to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom, would he be prepared to accept a simple majority, even if a majority in the Parliament was opposed to the proposal?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The debate is going wide of the amendments before the Committee.

Hon. Members must remember that amendments are narrow and that they should keep their arguments within the confines of those amendments.

Dr. Godman: I expected your intervention, Mr. Martin. I did not intend to answer that question.
The consent of the people in a mature parliamentary democracy must override the views of parliamentary representatives. For change to be given legitimacy, it must meet the expectations and concerns of the people whose lives will, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for North Down, be changed. In that sense, referendums have more legitimacy than some of the divisions that take place in our Parliaments and Assemblies.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind your strictures, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman define the term used in the Bill—
the majority of the people of Northern Ireland"?
What is a majority of the people of Northern Ireland as opposed to a majority of those voting?

Dr. Godman: That is a good question. In the custom and practice of referendums, we speak of those who have the right to vote in elections. The hon. Gentleman may say that he does not like that definition of a majority in Northern Ireland, but I do not understand how otherwise one can define a majority. That must be a simple majority, not a weighted one, because George Cunningham and his supporters did us no favours 19 or 20 years ago.
I have some understanding of the concerns of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but he must continue engaging, as he has done so admirably up to now, in honourable debate with hon. Members such as constitutional nationalists who sit on this side of the Committee. The amendments are wrong in principle and they would be disastrous in practice.

Mr. Öpik: I have been examining the Belfast agreement. I assume that many of us accept that it is the starting point and that if we ever need help with interpretation we should return to the agreement to find out what it says.
There is a potential contradiction on pages 2 and 3 of the agreement that requires clarification. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has already pointed out, on page 2, under "Constitutional Issues", the agreement states that the participants will,
recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status".
On page 3, paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states:
Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
There is potential confusion there. On one page, the agreement seems to refer to 50 per cent. or more of those who are eligible to vote; on another, it seems to refer to 50 per cent. or more of those who choose to vote.

Mr. Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are two stages in the process? Even in the annexe,


the first stage is referred to as requiring a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has to determine when the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to leave the United Kingdom. In that sense, the Secretary of State should be making such a determination based on the wish of a majority of the people, as opposed to a majority of the electorate or a majority of those who will be voting, but when the Secretary of State then calls a poll, under the annexe it will be based on a majority of those voting.

Mr. Öpik: As the hon. Gentleman demonstrates, the point needs to be clarified. That is exactly my concern. Given the seriousness of what will take place if such a referendum is held, it is important that we determine now exactly what we are looking for and what we would expect in this context. At least twice in those two pages there is a reference to a majority of those entitled to vote, and I seek clarification on that.
I should also like the Minister to explain what he sees as the role of the House of Commons before a referendum is held. Would it have a debate? What other role would it have before the Secretary of State initiated a referendum?

Mr. Temple-Morris: I have been listening carefully and I hope that I am not alone in thinking that a certain unease is beginning to creep into the debate about the language used, not only in the amendments but in the various documents. During the debate on amendment No. 60, I disagreed very much with the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). This time I pay him the compliment of saying that I listened to his speech carefully.
The constitutional significance of the Bill and the amendments, and of any referendum that might result, is enormous, so we must get this right. I do not like weighted majorities any more than anybody else, but we are dealing here—surely to goodness we all know it and that is why we are here—with a unique situation in our islands. That uniqueness may even go beyond our islands.
We must get this matter right. The language does not hang together. If the lawyer in some of us comes out, it does not appear to be quite right. The Bill is clear. Clause 1(1) refers to
the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll".
Clause 1(2) contains the words
expressed by a majority in such a poll".
Therefore, the Bill is clear enough.
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the language of his amendment goes to the heart of the discrepancies more than the amendment so moderately moved by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned the Belfast agreement, but paragraph 1(v) of the agreement between the two Governments contains the words
by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
That is a straight bland comment.
In the constitutional section at the beginning of her statement to the House, the Secretary of State referred to the principle of consent and said:
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and will stay that way for as long as that is the wish of a majority of people who live there".—[Official Report, 20 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 479.]
That is another interpretation of it.
I make no plea, simply a statement to hon. Members from Northern Ireland that having another Division at this stage with the result that could emerge would belie the seriousness of the issue. We must hear the Front-Bench spokesmen, but, whatever we end up voting for, I hope that the language and the discrepancies will be worked out. I repeat that I do not like weighted majorities, but the seriousness of the situation deserves a symmetry of language.

Mr. McNamara: The Bill simply incorporates the draft clauses and schedules as contained in annexe A of the agreement, to which I refer my hon. Friend. That is what was agreed, and to depart from that would be to depart from the agreement.

Mr. Temple-Morris: My hon. Friend is the last person with whom I would want to disagree on that, but what he says does not alter the fact that, in other material documents and in agreements solemnly entered into by the two Governments, the language is at odds with the language of the Bill. The seriousness of the issue—a referendum and the constitutional results that would flow from it—merits a symmetry of language. I hope that the Minister will think about that both now and as consideration of the Bill progresses. If, afterwards, the Bill is the same, we shall no doubt vote on it in due course.

Mrs. Fyfe: I urge Unionist Members to think carefully about pressing the amendment to the vote, as some hon. Members have had bad experiences of such measures. The Bill must mean what it says when it specifies
a majority of the people…voting in a poll".
How can the views of people who do not vote be taken into account? People can vote by postal ballot or by proxy, so anyone who is not totally brain dead may vote if he or she cares enough about the issue. If people do not vote, we must presume that they do not care much one way or the other. Only the views of those who vote in any ballot anywhere can be taken into account.
Such a poll will not fall from the skies; there will be one only if it is obvious that a clear current of opinion is running one way or the other. Who in their right mind would hold such a poll if they thought that the outcome was on a such knife edge that it could go 1 per cent. either way?

Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Lady is talking about the wrong matter. There is no question that the views of those who have not voted will be taken into account. The clause specifically refers to
a majority of the people in Northern Ireland voting in a poll".
As there are 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland, the clause must mean that 800,000 plus one must vote for any change in the constitution.

Mrs. Fyfe: My point is precisely that a majority of one is enough in any sensible voting system. However, it is


hardly likely that anyone would want to call a poll if he or she thought that it could be so close. To maintain peace and decency in civil society, one would want to ensure that the outcome was pretty clear one way or the other.
Throughout the debate, some Unionist Members have argued that people were deceived into voting 71 per cent. in favour of the agreement. If the people of Northern Ireland do not yet understand the consequences of voting one way or the other, they must be brain dead, as Northern Ireland has for a long time been one of the most thoroughly debated aspects of politics in these islands.
I earnestly warn people not to set up any fancy franchise. Such a franchise in 1979 did great harm to relations between Scotland and England; it led Scottish people to distrust people in England and was constantly held up as a reason not to vote Labour. If hon. Members are held responsible for a fancy franchise, they will risk incurring the resentment of people who are unhappy with the outcome for years to come.

Mr. McGrady: I draw the attention of the Committee to the agreement, which is absolutely clear about what is intended and, therefore, about what has been agreed.
On page 2 of the agreement, under the heading "Constitutional Issues" there are several paragraphs that comment generally on the subject matter and use the same terminology, stating that the status of Northern Ireland will be maintained
save with the consent of a majority of its people".
That is the general interpretation of that expression. On the next page, we see that the parties and the two Governments making the agreement have specifically laid down the legislative terminology to which they would agree in terms of amendments to be made. Under the heading "Annex A: Draft Clauses/Schedules for Incorporation in British Legislation", the agreed form of words is:
It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGrady: Let me make my second point. Paragraph 1(2) under that heading states:
But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll".
That refers to the previous paragraph, which refers to those
voting in a poll held".
Therefore I would argue and submit to the Committee that that is precisely what is intended by the agreeing parties and the two Governments to be included in British legislation. There is no ambiguity whatsoever about what was agreed.

Mr. Taylor: I put to the hon. Gentleman the same point that I raised earlier. He has quoted annexe A paragraph 1 quite correctly. It states:
without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll".

If there are 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland, what would be a simple majority?

Mr. McGrady: A simple majority in any interpretation of the English language is more than 50 per cent.

Mr. Taylor: So, 800,000 plus one.

Mr. McGrady: I am not here to define what the number will be under the electoral roll several years hence. I have no idea what it will be. I am saying simply that the agreement reached between the two Governments and the eight other parties referred to a majority voting in a poll. That is the precise terminology that we are dealing with in the Bill and there can be no variation from it if the agreement is to be upheld, as I sincerely hope that the Committee will do.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Governments who have been handling this situation have always told the people of Northern Ireland that there is no change. They refer us to the Sunningdale agreement, which they have trotted out over and over again, and which states:
the present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom. If, in the future, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a United Ireland, the British Government would support that wish.
Then we turn to the Anglo-Irish agreement, because we are told that the Belfast agreement is a development of that. The Anglo-Irish agreement states:
the two governments—Affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
That has been repeated over and over again by the Governments, but now we are not getting the majority of the people of Northern Ireland; we are getting the majority of those who take part in a poll, which is entirely different.

Mr. McNamara: Nonsense.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is entirely different. The hon. Gentleman appears not to know the difference between the majority of people living in England and the majority of people who vote in an election or a referendum.

Mr. McGrady: Surely the hon. Gentleman is making the assumption that those who do not vote are, by not voting, expressing their views one way or the other. That is an impossible situation. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that a vote can be interpreted only according to those saying yes and those saying no when voting on a particular for-or-against issue?

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is interesting to hear that comment now from the hon. Gentleman. When it came to the Sunningdale agreement, he told us, "You Unionists needn't worry; it rests with the majority." In the first referendum in Scotland—one hon. Member opposed it completely and said that he did not like what happened—a majority of people in the entire electorate were required to vote for devolution. That is what is in our amendment. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is so much background noise that I cannot hear what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is saying.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I was beginning to think that you would not profit if you could hear what I was saying, Mr. Martin.
This point has been laboured tonight, but it is an important issue. The Government must tell the people of Northern Ireland what they are saying now. They now claim that, in a poll—elected representatives will have no say about when it should be held—a simple majority of one could put us into a United Ireland, with no mention of safeguards for anyone. That is the real issue.

10 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy: It has been another interesting debate. Hon. Members who argue the case for the amendments—as they did for the last group—suggest that, if a bare majority of people voted in a referendum to become part of a united Ireland, it would plunge Northern Ireland into chaos and anarchy. Of course there are safeguards. To clarify an issue that raised its head in the previous debate, according to clause 1, the Secretary of State must come to the House after such a poll is held. I have now discovered something else lurking in clause 77(3) and schedule 1. In order for the mechanics of that poll to be agreed by Parliament, there would be an opportunity—I apologise to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) if I misinterpreted his remarks—for both Houses to review the Secretary of State's decision if it were judged rash and ill-defined and if it was believed that a border poll was being held without basis in reason or common sense. I have not the slightest doubt that hon. Members in this and the other place would point that out during such a debate.
Why do we resist the amendments? In the first instance, it is because they contradict what is in the agreement. The agreement is clear: we are talking about a majority of those who vote. The word "majority" is used in other contexts, but it is defined in clause 1: it is a majority of those who vote. I cannot see any other way of doing it.
During the talks, there was barely a mention of a weighted majority. Many hon. Members present in the Chamber tonight would not be here if they had to rely on weighted majorities; many hon. Members would love to have a majority of 50 per cent. plus one. Several hon. Members have referred to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which refers to a majority of people voting in a border poll. Border polls have been held before, but there was no mention in the 1973 Act of a weighted majority of 60 or 70 per cent. It refers only to a majority of people in Northern Ireland, and many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Antrim, supported that idea.
Hon. Members have mentioned the 1978 experience, which placed into Acts of Parliament reference to a majority of those on the electoral register. I remember the occasion very well. My predecessor in my constituency was instrumental, with Mr. Cunningham, in drawing up the amendments that the House of Commons had to agree in order to pass the devolution package. In my inexperienced days when I was in my 20s, I supported such a move—I was not a Member of Parliament—although, in hindsight, I was wrong. It left in Scotland a legacy of bitterness that has lasted until this day because people felt that they had been cheated out of the result.

How else could we have determined, in the recent referendums in Wales, Scotland and London, whether people wanted change other than by how the majority of those who came out to vote, voted? We do not know how those who stayed at home would have voted. We can only make assumptions, but we cannot go by assumptions. We can make judgments only from the majority vote of those who vote in the polls.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister suggesting that any poll result in Northern Ireland, like that which occurred in Wales, would be anything but utterly disastrous for social or political peace in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy: In Wales, we had a small majority—6,000 out of a population of 3.5 million. It could not have been much smaller. Obviously, I accept that there is a difference between Wales and Northern Ireland. There was much speculation about the referendum on the agreement. People asked what would happen if the majority was 50 or 55 per cent.; some said that, to be acceptable, the majority would have to be 80 per cent., while others said that it would have to be 70 per cent. Naturally, the more people who vote in a referendum the better, and those of us who supported the agreement were delighted that some 72 per cent. voted in favour of it.
Where does this argument begin and end? We can only say that a majority is a majority, which is why, essentially, we cannot change it. The agreement, printed word for word in the Bill, says that, when a matter is put to the test, it is tested on a majority of people in Northern Ireland who want to vote on it. Because the matter is so crucial to the people of Northern Ireland, I have not the slightest doubt that, were such a poll to be held, a very high percentage of people would vote and we could rely on the result.

Mr. Grieve: Does the Minister agree that one can say with certainty of those who do not vote in elections that they do not consider the matter serious enough to go out and cast a vote? That is what it boils down to, whether we are talking about elections or referendums.

Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with that point.
However, these are hypothetical matters and we do not know when those border polls would be held. All we can say is that the agreement is clear. Consent is the most important principle and consent can be tested only by the majority vote of those who take the trouble to vote.

Mr. Trimble: I apologise to those hon. Members present for the fact that we have spent far too long discussing this issue in view of all the other matters to be considered, so I shall try to keep my closing comments brief.
The Minister gave an effective reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but at no time did he touch on my amendment, because it would not change the majority for the efficacy of the vote, and neither does it purport to do so. It relates purely to the binding character of the vote. Clause 1(2) places an obligation on the Secretary of State, and the effect of the amendment would be that, if the vote were less than 60 per cent., the Secretary of State would not be under


an obligation, but would have to consider what to do. She would not be bound by the vote and would thus be in the same position as the Government are at present with regard to every referendum that has been held in the United Kingdom. None of the referendums held in the United Kingdom has been binding; all have been purely advisory. The amendment would preserve that position.
I was greatly struck by the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) about the unintended consequences of weighted majorities. However, everything has unintended consequences, and we must bear that in mind when framing legislation. We may be unable to predict the precise circumstances that will arise at a future date, so it is important to preserve discretion. That is what my amendment would do. However, we have debated the matter and have registered views. In view of the hour, and the fact that we have many more important things to consider, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 1, line 15, after 'of', insert 'the Republic of'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 162, in clause 67, page 31, line 37, after 'of', insert 'the Republic of'.

Mr. Trimble: Amendment No. 105 is simple. It merely complies with existing legislation by calling the Republic of Ireland by its correct name in British constitutional law. From 1949 until now, the entity previously known as the Irish Free State, and properly known under its own constitution as Eire, has been referred to within the United Kingdom as the Republic of Ireland. There has been no legislation to change that.
The Government will rely on the fact that the Ireland Act 1949 used the word "may", but that has to be interpreted in the context of the time and the circumstances. It was regarded then, and has been until now, as fixing for the purpose of our legislation the name of the entity in the other part of the island of Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. If the Government want to change things, let them table an amendment to the 1949 Act, but let them not assume that they can change legislation by the exercise of prerogative.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There are at least two instances in the Bill where reference is made to "the Government of Ireland", at clauses 1 and 67. I tabled amendments to both. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had tabled an amendment to clause 1 in the same terms, because the sloppy and slovenly drafting of the agreement probably caused the problem. The right hon. Gentleman accepted that terminology when he accepted the agreement, because those are precisely the words contained in the agreement. I am glad that he now realises that it is proper to correct the work that he did not properly do at an earlier drafting stage.
I can think of no past legislation referring to "the Government of Ireland". Ireland is an island; it has on it two states. It is clear from the terminology used in legislation that reference to those whom we

describe as the Dublin Government is reference to the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Reference to "the Government of Ireland" suggests that Ireland as a whole has one Government. Quite clearly, that is the tendency in the Bill, which intends to advance such a notion.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he will follow the proper terminology, which has been used consistently in legislation, and I note that reference was made in the recent decommissioning scheme to the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I hope that he will correct what has happened, although he cannot say that the Government had not noticed the terminology and that it was an accident. When his legal team went through the consultative process with my colleagues and me, it was pointed out to them on several occasions that the term "Ireland" had been used. It was also used in the discarded clause 26, in terms of authorities in Ireland.
I trust that the slovenly work of those who drafted the agreement has simply been carried through and that the Minister is about to correct it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I drew the Government's attention to this matter when they published the agreement. I was told that it was a printer's error which would be changed. All the agreements that went out in Northern Ireland used the words
for Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and
for the Government of Ireland".
They said that that was a mistake and that they would correct it. The official document, which is issued by the Table Office, also uses the words
For the Government of Ireland".
In Europe, the Government of Ireland started to behave in the same way. They began to dilute the name of the Government here—the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will remember that we went to the authorities in Europe and had the correction made. This was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic was officially called the Republic of Ireland. I think that the House should at least be the custodian of its own bailiwick, and should call the Government of the Republic what it is, according to its own standing.

Mr. McNamara: I do not intend to delay the Committee for long, but I must repeat that making the proposed change would substantially alter the content of the agreement and the draft clauses in annexe A, which speak of the Government of Ireland.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) speak of two states on the island of Ireland. I thought that there was one state, and part of a state. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a declaration of unilateral independence, that is up to him, but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, with great respect.
There is much more in this than is immediately apparent—

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, not for a moment or two.
It is not for me to go into all the history, and the phraseology, of what has or has not been the name of the state in the southern bit of the northern part of the island of Ireland. That has been the subject of controversy on many occasions, in different contexts. The agreement contains draft clauses; the draft clauses are, in effect, in the Bill. That is the agreement. Let us not nitpick; let us leave it as it is.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I am willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought that the Committee wanted to make progress.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I am interested by the hon. Gentleman's argument that using the term "Republic of Ireland"—which is, of course, the correct constitutional name for the country concerned—in some way changes the agreement, because the agreement refers to the Government of Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as his argument suggests, that, as "Northern Ireland" is the description of my part of the United Kingdom that is used in the agreement, those who now refer to it simply as "the north of Ireland" are changing the terms of the agreement?

Mr. McNamara: If it is referred to as Northern Ireland in the agreement, it should be referred to as Northern Ireland in the Bill.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I was carried away in the last debate, but I shall undoubtedly talk to him about the matters that he raised.
When I first took up my Northern Ireland post, I was struck by the importance of terminology. I think that terminology is more important in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I remember going to Derry city council, in the town of Londonderry, and hoping not to use any name during a two-hour meeting, because it is difficult to please everyone.
In this instance, we cannot accept the amendments. Let me explain why. The most important reason is this. During the talks that led to the agreement, there was an understanding between the two Governments that this Government would refer to "the Government of Ireland"—which they can do: as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said, under the 1949 Act that is permissible, although not mandatory. Significantly, however, we referred to "the Government of Ireland" because that is how the Irish Government described themselves. Even more significantly, the Irish

Government, for the first time ever, described our Government as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As a result, that is contained in the declaratory aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is the declaration in the agreement and that terminology in the legislation that went before the Dail in Dublin?

Mr. Murphy: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman with an answer to that. The legislation before the Dail is different from this Bill.
During the talks that led to the agreement, the Irish Government, for the first time ever, referred to our Government as I have just described.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Clause 1(2) does not refer to the "Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", as the Minister has just implied. It refers to the "Government of the United Kingdom."

Mr. Murphy: During the talks and in the agreement, the Irish Government used that terminology for the first time ever. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that terminology was used during the negotiations.

Mr. Thompson: Do not the facts that the Minister has revealed to the House give credence to the view held by many people in Northern Ireland that the Government want to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, and that that is why they agreed to this change? Rather than refer to the Republic of Ireland, the Bill refers to Ireland. Surely that revelation will show to the people of Northern Ireland that the real basis of the agreement and this legislation is eventually to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Murphy: That is a load of nonsense. That is not the case. The debate has centred on the principle of consent. It is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they wish to remain within the United Kingdom or to become part of a united Ireland.

Mr. Thompson: The Minister says that it is up to the people of Northern Ireland, but the Government wish that the people of Northern Ireland would leave the United Kingdom.

Mr. Murphy: We have not said anything of the sort. It is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide their destiny and their future. If the majority of the people want to be British citizens, so be it. That is the purpose of the agreement.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) made a valid point about the clause. I draw his attention to the fact that clause 1 is a straight word-for-word transfer from the agreement into the Bill. The British-Irish agreement, which is at the back of the Belfast agreement, states:
"AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND".
That is the international aspect of the agreement.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister's remarks will cause great consternation in Northern Ireland. The Government


of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have accepted, in some secret understanding with the Dublin Government, that that Government will be called the Government of Ireland. In all legislation from now on and in all official documentation, the Dublin Government will be referred to as the Government of Ireland. That is totally unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. Would the Minister like to tell us about any other secret deals?

Mr. Murphy: That was not secret, because a copy of the agreement went to every house in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it did not go to the hon. Gentleman's house. It says in big letters:
"AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND".
It is as clear as crystal, and is in the international agreement attached to the Belfast agreement, a copy of which went through every letter box in every house in the Province of Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister is breaching the agreement. He has quoted the agreement correctly, but the legislation does not refer to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: it merely refers to the Government of the United Kingdom, so the Minister is breaching the agreement.

Mr. Murphy: Clause 1 is a transfer word for word from the agreement. The international agreement that is attached to the Belfast agreement refers to the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland".

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister bring to the Dispatch Box the southern Ireland version of the agreement and read out what is in it? He has read out what is in his: tell us what is in the other version.

Mr. Murphy: I am quite convinced that it is the same, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
Whatever the geographical misunderstanding—there may be a misunderstanding about what is meant by the term "Ireland"—in the rest of the legislation we shall refer to the Republic of Ireland to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. That is clear. As I have said, the words in clause 1 are straight from the agreement, word for word. I hope that hon. Members understand the significance of the fact that the Irish Government have at last recognised that the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland. That was a significant attachment. [Interruption.] There are no secret deals or secret this or that in any of this.

Mr. Grieve: I completely understand the Minister's point and the reasons for the use of the term Government of Ireland. He has satisfied me on that. It is right, is it not, that, in the preliminary part of the Bill, it would be perfectly possible to define the United Kingdom as being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without in any way impinging upon the wording of the agreement? It may be argued that that is an exercise in semantics, but if it provided reassurance it could properly be done at a later stage of the Bill's progress.

Mr. Murphy: We shall check on some of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield

(Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). We believe that, under the Interpretation Act 1978, any reference in legislation to the United Kingdom means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we are checking on that.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that at international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Council of Europe, a placard in front of our delegation simply stating "United Kingdom" is understood to mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy: I am not sure that everybody understands that. I returned from Belfast some weeks ago by air—I shall not say by which company—and on arrival in Heathrow we saw a sign stating "Welcome to the United Kingdom". I am sure we all regard that as quite improper.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's difficulties. Many people think that the United Kingdom is England. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) may recall that at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Ottawa, delegates from the Republic of Ireland moved that in the IPU the title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be changed to the United Kingdom. That was adopted by a majority vote, against the wishes of the British delegates and others. As the Minister said, we must be careful. When we use titles, we should use them correctly.

Mr. Murphy: I certainly agree that United Kingdom does not mean England: there are other places as well.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked about the Irish version of the agreement. I have checked. The Irish version is exactly the same. It refers to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, of course, that is a key change because in previous practice all agreements had two versions—one Irish and one British. The Irish version certainly refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The point has been well made in the debate that we must take great care.
My main concern in this matter is that we do not alter clause 1 because it is part of the agreement. We are conscious of the nature of the comments made by hon. Members and the sensitivities surrounding the issue. However, I believe that we have sufficient safeguards in the Interpretation Act and other measures and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to disagree with the Minister again, but he misinterpreted what I said about the Ireland Act 1949. I did not say that its terms were permissive; I was merely anticipating that he would say that. I was pointing out to him that it was intended to fix, for United Kingdom use, the term that would be used to describe what hitherto had been known as the Irish Free State. From then until now, it has been consistent practice to use the term "Republic of Ireland".
If a change is to be made, it should be made properly through the legislation. There is a strong argument that the Minister is currently acting contrary to the 1949 Act and is not really putting the matter on a proper footing.
Some of the points of concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) about subsection (2) stem from its rather convoluted—perhaps the word is "curious"—language. It states:
as may be agreed between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.
I wonder why the phrase, "in the United Kingdom" was used. There was no need for it—it could simply have said, "between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of'. Perhaps the Minister would explain the thinking behind that.
We have made the point that the Government have made a mistake in the agreement into which they have entered—

Mr. Peter Robinson: You signed it.

Mr. Trimble: I am referring to the treaty between the two Governments. I have not signed anything; the hon. Gentleman knows better than that.
The Government have made a mistake that will lead to confusion. However, so that we can move on and discuss some other amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN,  being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon, had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68 (Debate on clause standing part), That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

Question agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

POLLS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 1

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 39, line 18, leave out 'including' and insert 'except'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 26, page 13, line 42, at end insert
', except that he shall not by order create criminal offences'.
No. 36, in clause 72, page 33, line 34, after 'franchise', insert
'nor the creation of criminal offences'.

Mr. Moss: In the interests of getting through a little more business this evening, I shall be brief. The amendments deal with the creation of criminal offences by Order in Council. Amendment No. 37 refers to schedule 1; No. 36 to clause 72; and No. 19 to clause 26.
The powers conferred on the Secretary of State in schedule 1 refer to the poll on the future of Northern Ireland, and the powers in clause 26 relate to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, whereas the Government's powers in clause 72 refer to elections to district councils. In each case, the Bill gives the Government, either directly or through the Secretary of State, the power, by Order

in Council, to create criminal offences relating to the elections. That is specifically referred to in schedule 1, and implicity referred to in clauses 26 and 72, as the power is not excluded.
Amendment No. 37 would change the word "including" in line 18 to "except", to make it clear that the Secretary of State does not have the power to create new categories of criminal offence by Order in Council.
Amendment No. 36 would insert in line 34 the words
nor the creation of criminal offences
after "franchise", making it crystal clear that creating such offences is not one of the Government's powers.
Amendment No. 19 would add the words
except that he shall not by order create criminal offences
to section 26(4).
We believe that an Order in Council is quite the wrong vehicle for such measures, which are best and most properly dealt with in primary legislation.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity, even at a very late stage, to speak to that group of amendments. However—I fear that I shall have to disappoint him—the Government oppose the amendments. We believe that we have the power under those sections of the Bill to create criminal offences by orders.
Although there is nothing new about creating offences through subordinate legislation, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that creating offences is an important decision. However, the ability is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which gives Parliament an opportunity fully to debate a draft order. I should draw the Committee's attention to the Northern Ireland Negotiations (Referendum) Order 1998 and the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998—with which I know the hon. Gentleman was involved. Those measures were debated by the House only a couple of months ago, and included provisions to combat electoral fraud, which I know is a particular concern of Northern Ireland Members.
We believe that it is very important for the opportunities and flexibility offered by the Bill to be maintained. I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We resist the amendments.

Mr. Moss: The Minister did not say that legislation for England, Wales or Scotland, for example, contains provision for such a procedure. Is he simply saying that the procedure should apply only to Northern Ireland? If so, why is it necessary that important measures—providing the ability to create new criminal offences in elections, for example—should pertain only to Northern Ireland? Should not the House have an opportunity to discuss such provisions in primary legislation on the Floor of the House and in Committee rather than by affirmative resolution of an Order in Council?

Mr. Murphy: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Opposition expressed similar doubts when we were considering the legislation on Scotland. However, I believe that there are special circumstances, and that—in some of the points we are dealing with on electoral


offences—there is a need for speed of legislation. I would be the last person to delay any change in law designed to stamp out electoral fraud, wherever it might exist.

Mr. Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

PREVIOUS ENACTMENTS

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in page 1, line 16, at beginning insert '(1)'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 107, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
'(2) This section is to come into force on the day appointed under section 3.'.
No. 135, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
'(2) If the Assembly has passed with cross community support a resolution praying that this provision should come into force the Secretary of State may lay a draft of an Order before Parliament to bring this provision into force.
(3) The Assembly shall not consider any resolution under (2) above until more than 12 months after the appointed day.'

Mr. Ross: You will see, Mr. Martin—it is quite evident—that amendment No. 134 is consequential on amendment No. 135, although, in some respects, the latter amendment is consequential on the former one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has tabled amendment No. 107, which generally tries to achieve the same objective—equity of treatment between the constitution of the Irish Republic and the constitution of the United Kingdom.
The Government of Ireland Act 1920 was, of course, intent on preserving the unity of the Kingdom. The agreement's position on the matter is quite clear—throughout this debate we have heard quite a lot about the agreement, and about how sacrosanct it is. Paragraph 7(5), on page 4—under "Annex B: Irish Government Draft Legislation to Amend the Constitution"—states:
If such a declaration is not made within twelve months of this section being added to this Constitution or such longer period as may be provided for by law, this section shall cease to have effect and shall be omitted from every official text of this Constitution published thereafter.
The Government of the Irish Republic are changing their constitution and publishing the changes. Then, if things do not work out as they envisage, they will go back to the status quo. The United Kingdom Government, however, are removing the last vestiges of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 from the statute book with no possibility of bringing them back. Therefore, there could be circumstances in which the United Kingdom will have changed the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, but the constitution of the Irish Republic will not have changed at all. Indeed, it may revert to the present position and restore its territorial claim.
The Irish Government's position is "Heads I win; tails I win" and that is not acceptable. If, under certain circumstances, it is possible for the Irish Republic to

restore the status quo, the United Kingdom should be in exactly the same position. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the Government should make it perfectly plain that they intend to retain the status quo for Northern Ireland in British constitutional law should things not work out as envisaged.
In a characteristically modest mood, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann has tabled an amendment that states:
This section is to come into force on the day appointed under section 3.
I would go a little further. My amendment was born out of long experience in the practical marketplace and dealing with folk, when giving away one's position before being dead certain of getting one's price frequently led to giving something away without getting anything in return. My right hon. Friend's amendment promises to do something on the appointed day. The Dublin Government are saying, "Regardless of that, we intend to have our pound of flesh". It is only sensible that the United Kingdom Government should retain their freedom of action and not wipe out the Government of Ireland Act 1920 completely.
The Dublin changes are not giving up claim to sovereignty, but shifting it from territory to people in a very explicit way, and the United Kingdom Government accept that. Under the new statement that the Irish are adopting, all those born in the island of Ireland are entitled to Irish citizenship. That is the present position. It does not matter whether or not they are born in the United Kingdom, they still have that freedom of choice of nationality.
As the Minister will know, dual citizenship is an interesting concept which is not universally recognised and respected. Different countries take very different views. Some interpret it loosely and casually. The Irish Republic allow one's grandparents to give one Irish citizenship, even if two generations have been born overseas. In other countries, only those who are born within the country—regardless of who their parents are—can claim citizenship.

Mr. John D. Taylor: If the Republic did not have that rule, it would not have a football team.

Mr. Ross: Of course we understand that, and the benefits of having footballers trained in England is evident at times. Sometimes, we are far too lax in our interpretation of who should and who should not be allowed to be a citizen. Citizenship not only brings benefits; it demands responsibilities. If that balance is drawn too loosely, people can gain the benefits without having to show the responsibility and commitment to a country that should go with citizenship. There should not be benefits without responsibility.
As a consequence of the agreement, some have said in recent weeks that they are Irish citizens and that the Government of the Irish Republic should interfere on their behalf in Northern Ireland. There have been demands in some articles in the Irish Post over here that the Irish Government should interfere on behalf of Irish people who have lived here for many years.
10.45 pm
The subject is bigger than the Bill or the agreement. The situation will be exploited ruthlessly by Irish nationalism and Irish republicanism in the years ahead. We should not allow the Irish Government to get away with that. We should pin them down and make it plain that there is a quid pro quo. We should be prepared to do away with the remnants of the 1920 Act only if the claim on territory is changed. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The logic of my position is inescapable. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the amendment.

Mr. Paul Murphy: We cannot shift from the words of the agreement on clause 2, but I may have some good news for the hon. Gentleman, because another part of the Bill satisfies his demands.
The concept of balanced constitutional change in both jurisdictions lies at the heart of the agreement. The amendments to the Irish constitution that were agreed in the referendum on 22 May will be implemented. The essence of the amendments is that there should be parity of change involving the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the Irish constitution.
The Secretary of State will be able to exercise her powers under clause 82(3) so that the clause comes into effect at the same time as the amendment to the Irish constitution. That means that there will be equality in the constitutional change in both jurisdictions. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. William Ross: Under the circumstances, I shall withdraw my amendment, but only to study the Minister's words carefully in writing. My amendment No. 135 would insert a long delay—the same minimum one year delay that Dublin is demanding. The clause that the Minister has referred to does not go that far. However, I shall study what he has said. I hope to come back to the amendment on Report, but, in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 9.

Division No. 346]
[10.49 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Boateng, Paul


Allan, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brake, Tom


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Austin, John
Buck, Ms Karen


Battle, John
Burnett, John


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bennett, Andrew F
Canavan, Dennis


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Bermingham, Gerald
Caplin, Ivor


Berry, Roger
Caton, Martin


Blackman, Liz
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clapham, Michael


Blizzard, Bob
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)





Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Lindsay


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Jenkins, Brian


Cox, Tom
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Crausby, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darvill, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kemp, Fraser


Dawson, Hilton
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S


Dobbin, Jim
Kidney, David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Doran, Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dowd, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kingham, Ms Tess


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Laxton, Bob


Edwards, Huw
Lepper, David


Efford, Clive
Levitt, Tom


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ennis, Jeff
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Livingstone, Ken


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fisher, Mark
Lock, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Love, Andrew


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McAvoy, Thomas


Follett, Barbara
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fyfe, Maria
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gapes, Mike
Macdonald, Calum


Gardiner, Barry
McDonnell, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McGrady, Eddie


Gerrard, Neil
McIsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Goggins, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John


Gunnell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maxton, John


Hancock, Mike
Meale, Alan


Hanson, David
Merron, Gillian


Harris, Dr Evan
Michael, Alun


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Milburn, Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Hesford, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)






Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mudie, George
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Soley, Clive


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Eddie
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Öpik, Lembit
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stringer, Graham


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Palmer, Dr Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pike, Peter L
Temple-Morris, Peter


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pond, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Trickett, Jon


Purchase, Ken
Turner Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Quinn, Lawrie
Vis, Dr Rudi


Radice, Giles
Ward, Ms Claire


Rapson, Syd
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rogers, Allan
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ruane, Chris
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wise, Audrey


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Woolas, Phil


Ryan, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Sanders, Adrian
Wray, James


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Singh, Marsha
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forsythe, Clifford
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Thompson, William


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Peter Robinson and


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after three hours after the commencement of proceedings, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Committee report progress: to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Air Safety

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Tom Brake: I am pleased to have the opportunity at this late hour to discuss air safety. Recent growth in the number of passengers and the volume of freight travelling by air has been phenomenal. It is expected that the number of passengers carried will increase by about 4 per cent. per annum until 2006, and demand for freight capacity is expected to double over the next 10 years.
If travellers' perception of air travel is to remain that of a very safe form of transport, safety standards must be improved year on year. I am not suggesting that air travel is dangerous. Clearly, it is safer than travel by car, bus or train, but, with summer travel reaching its peak, passengers want to know that everything is being done to ensure their safety in the air. That means reducing the external risk of collisions, and minimising the internal risks caused by passengers' loutish behaviour or poor cabin design.
Some measures that could improve safety are worth detailed examination and a considered response from the Minister, which I am sure that they will receive. Some have been raised with me by a senior air traffic controller at West Drayton, others by members of the air safety group, which I sponsor. The group consists of ex-pilots and ex-engineers with a particular interest in the safety aspects of the industry, so their concerns cannot be dismissed lightly.
First, there are the points raised by the air traffic controller. In his view, at peak times, sector capacity is regularly being exceeded, and many potential incidents are simply not being reported. He mentions, for instance, an incident in the south of England a couple of days ago, when, because air traffic controllers in his sector were fully occupied with resolving one problem, they failed to spot the emergence of a potentially dangerous situation. Fortunately, it was spotted by air traffic controllers from another sector.
Sector overload could explain the sharp increase in the number of the most serious air misses. Those are few in number, but they have risen from 12 in 1993 to 30 in 1996, and with 13 incidents reported in the first four months in 1997, the period for which the most recent figures are available, they could be even higher in 1997, making perhaps a threefold increase in just five years.
I call on the Government and the safety regulatory group to look again at the allowed flow of between 42 and 46 aircraft movements per hour per sector, and to consider reducing that period to perhaps 30 minutes. That would help to smooth out dangerous peaks in aircraft movements.
The next issue that the senior air traffic controller was concerned about was European co-operation on air traffic control matters. That is limited. For instance, French controllers currently point many aircraft at Boulogne to get them out of French airspace as quickly as possible, with little regard for the difficulties that that causes air traffic controllers this side of the channel. I understand that United Kingdom air traffic controllers return the favour. Therefore, he urges rapid progress on a European


air traffic control system, as does Lockheed Martin, representatives of which spoke to me today. They consider that co-operation at Government level is particularly important to ensure the rapid implementation of such a system.
I come finally to National Air Traffic Services. The senior air traffic controller's concerns in relation to NATS are not related to the delays that are being experienced in building the replacement software system. I think that all agree that the initial targets for building that system were far too ambitious. His concerns relate to the impact that the development of the system is having on staffing levels at West Drayton. He said that there are chronic manpower shortages, partly because staff are being drafted into Swanwick to test the new system there.
On an even more serious note, the senior air traffic controller drew my attention to a report produced by the 50 air traffic controllers working on testing the new system, which describes the system as fatally flawed. A method of operation has yet to be identified. There is some debate about whether all that is required to implement an acceptable method of operation are some minor system changes, but the current perception is that it will not work. He is also extremely worried about the stress levels of air traffic controllers, whether they use the old or the new system. I hope that the Minister will respond on that point, if not now in the near future.
I, too, have concerns about NATS, and specifically its privatisation, which I oppose, along with at least 16 Labour Members of Parliament who have signed an early-day motion opposing it.
Will the Minister explain what impact she expects privatisation plans will have on the delivery date of the new software system in Swanwick and in Prestwick? Can she guarantee that the first call on the proceeds of any privatisation of NATS will be for air safety initiatives?
I come now to some points raised by the air safety group. Drunken and rowdy air passengers may at first seem a comic business, but they are increasingly a cause of concern to airlines. The number of serious incidents involving drunken passengers has increased significantly—in 1993 there were 13, whereas in 1997 there were 62, although I think that those figures apply only to British Airways, so the total could be higher.
Will the Minister consider implementing in the United Kingdom the rules that the Federal Aviation Authority has implemented in the United States, whereby the only alcohol that airline passengers may consume is that supplied by the airlines? Will she also, at the suggestion of British Airways, ask the Civil Aviation Authority to increase penalties for all misbehaviour that is punishable under the air navigation order—which the authority updates annually—and extend it to cover other kinds of disruptive behaviour, such as the use of personal stereos, laptops or mobile phones when the captain has instructed that they should be switched off?
The air safety group believes that much more could be done to improve cabin safety. In 1991, the Select Committee on Transport issued a report called "Aircraft Cabin Safety", which contained recommendations to improve cabin safety, although I regret to say that many of them have not been implemented. The recommendations included better seat belts and improving the cabin crew's

line of vision in the cabin. The Committee also recommended additional guidelines on the structural integrity of the plane, so that, for example, the fuel tanks were not ruptured in emergency alighting conditions. Will the Government undertake a review of all the outstanding recommendations and will they implement any of the key safety recommendations that have yet to be acted on?
I want an assurance from the Government that the United Kingdom will maintain its strict standards on flight time limitations. In the past, the European Union has tried to loosen regulations, so I hope that the Government will maintain a strong position.
It has been suggested that automated cockpits were responsible for the crash of a Taiwanese airbus. The problem is that, in some circumstances, pilots are unable to overrule the automatic pilot. Will the Government and the appropriate regulatory bodies examine both the training that pilots receive—concern has been expressed that the technical manuals that accompany automated pilots are insufficiently comprehensible—and the desirability of the extensive use of fly-by-wire technology?
I know that the Government will soon issue a White Paper on aviation, which I hope will deal with some or all of the safety issues that I have mentioned. There is no room for complacency about air safety. Over the next few weeks, hundreds of thousands of people will jet off for a well-deserved break; they will want the toughest standards in the world to apply to their journeys.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for raising such an important subject despite the lateness of the hour, affording himself the opportunity to raise the concerns of his group and me the opportunity to reiterate the Government's commitment to attach the highest possible priority to aviation safety.
As the hon. Gentleman said, aviation is a rapidly growing industry. Demand for air travel is expected to grow at 5 per cent. annually well into the new millennium, and the United Kingdom airline industry has doubled in size over the past 10 years. Increasing numbers of UK residents enjoy affordable holidays at a growing number of overseas destinations: 18 million holidays abroad were taken by air by UK residents in 1996; and Heathrow is the largest international airport in the world, handling 56 million passengers in 1996.
Britain's aviation safety record is excellent, but we share the hon. Gentleman's view that we cannot and must not be complacent. The effort that has made our aviation industry both successful and safe must continue to be made by all concerned: by those in the industry itself and those responsible for supporting and regulating that industry—the Government, the Civil Aviation Authority and its subsidiary company, National Air Traffic Services, or NATS.
We must also be prepared to make changes when changes become necessary. Recently, we announced our plans for the future of NATS. Our preferred option—a public-private partnership—will give NATS the freedom to borrow from the private sector for investment and business development, while retaining a significant public stake in the company. We believe that that will enable


NATS better to meet the challenges of the future, which is in itself good news for air safety. Most important, safety regulation will be made independent of service provision. The safety regulator will ensure that safety remains the overriding priority.
Our intention to review arrangements for safety regulation across all transport modes announced in our White Paper on integrated transport policy will take into account all aspects of air safety regulation. Safety for British skies and British passengers world wide requires international effort. That is why we were so determined during our presidency of the European Union to make real progress towards setting up a European aviation safety authority. An important first step in setting up a strong and effective safety body, establishing high and uniform levels of safety throughout Europe, was taken by Transport Ministers last month.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for European control and, as I am sure he is aware, that, too, is an area in which the Government are playing a leading role, by promoting such proposals within Europe. We have also been at the forefront in calling for safety audits by the International Civil Aviation Organisation for all countries world wide. Indeed, we were the first major aviation state to ask ICAO to audit our own Civil Aviation Authority. That request and, indeed, the assessment were welcomed by the CAA.
Day-to-day safety regulation of the UK industry is the statutory responsibility of the CAA, and we have every confidence that the authority is alive to the challenges facing air safety, as is the hon. Gentleman. The authority is no more content to live on its reputation than we are. The CAA does not simply react to the last accident: it analyses the circumstances in which various accidents and incidents occur world wide in order to focus its actions on ensuring continuing improvements in safety. The authority has set itself the primary objective of ensuring that the frequency of accidents does not rise in line with increased traffic.
The hon. Gentleman raised specific issues, and I have already described how our proposals for NATS will help to strengthen air safety. Air traffic control issues figured prominently in his speech. I assure the House that there is no question of the UK's air traffic control system breaking down. Safety is always the top priority in air traffic control— indeed, the number of risk-bearing airproxes where NATS controller error was a causal factor has been declining steadily, and the total for January to June of this year is likely to be only one.
All possible steps are taken to prevent such incidents occurring, but the fact is that human error cannot be eradicated completely. What we do and must continue to do is learn from each incident and ensure that the safety system as a whole prevents incidents from developing into accidents.
All airprox incidents are subject to thorough investigation. Airprox reports by pilots are examined by the joint airprox working group, and reports by air traffic controllers by the joint airprox assessment panel. In addition, the air accidents investigation branch has the right on any occasion to institute its own investigation. The CAA follows up any recommendations carefully. Similarly, incidents of overload, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are thoroughly investigated.

Air traffic controllers have the option of introducing flow management measures to ensure that no more traffic than can be handled safely is allowed into the system.

Mr. Brake: Will the Minister respond to the specific point—perhaps she was about to come to it—regarding whether there is scope for reducing the one-hour period over which flow is measured, so as to ensure that there are not massive peaks within any given hour? That problem would be ironed out if the time frame were much shorter.

Ms Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the arrival of aircraft often depends upon issues that are often beyond anyone's control. They have to do with weather conditions, air speed and, not least, where the aircraft departed from initially.
I would be hard pressed to give a categorical assurance on the one-hour issue, given the number of air traffic movements in our skies. I reiterate that it is within the power of air traffic controllers to manage the aircraft flow and to ensure that there is no danger. Safety must be the priority at all times, and it is the priority of all controllers. It is impossible for me to give a particularly detailed reply about the specific time scale that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I am happy to examine the matter and write to him in more detail.
To cope with the increasing demands on air space, NATS has developed a two-centre strategy for the United Kingdom. One of the centres will be the new en-route air traffic control centre at Swanwick in Hampshire, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It will take over from the existing centres at West Drayton and Manchester.
The Government share concerns about the delay to Swanwick, but we must all be aware that such delays are not uncommon on projects of this size and complexity. Those concerns were also set out in the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee report on air traffic control, to which we responded on 24 June. As our response made clear, there is no reason to assume that the delay to the new centre will give rise to extra risk to the travelling public.
The London area and terminal control centre at West Drayton can continue to deal safely with traffic demands until Swanwick is operational. However, we recognise that it would be desirable to allay concern over safety. Our response to the Select Committee report confirmed that we will be commissioning an audit of current systems and personnel at West Drayton, and examining again the new systems at Swanwick. I assure the House that current NATS systems are being checked rigorously for year 2000 non-compliance. All non-compliant items should be fixed and tested by the end of December 1998.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked some very specific questions about the priorities—

Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister clarify the Government's exploration of the public-private partnership? Does she believe that it will have any effect on the speed of replacing the Prestwick centre?

Ms Jackson: I was about to touch on precisely the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. They referred specifically to what we perceive as the likely outcome of


the public-private partnership as far as NATS structure and priorities are concerned. I assure the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)—I keep forgetting the name of his constituency, but he smiles, so I trust that he has forgiven me—that legislation will be required before the proposals can be put in place.
We have made it clear that we believe that a public-private partnership is the best way forward for NATS. The actual details, other than the split of shares—51 per cent. to the private sector and 49 per cent. to the Government, with the retention of a golden share—we have already announced publicly. However, the priority will remain safety, regardless of anything else that is inherent in the public-private partnership. We are not yet able to give any other details to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John McDonnell: As the Minister is aware, air traffic control West Drayton is in my constituency. Although safety is a priority, it is related to staff morale. Does she agree that, to maintain that morale, there needs to be closer and continued consultation with the staff of air traffic control West Drayton, particularly via their trade unions, to reassure them about their future employment, conditions of service, the protection of their pensions, and any future development of the public-private partnership?

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It gives me the opportunity to reassure him and the House that the issues that he has raised, which are especially important for those who have given so much dedicated service to their industry, are of primary concern to the Government. Those issues are being addressed, and my hon. Friend rightly points out that a successful conclusion to any of those matters depends on the closest liaison, co-operation and information being given to all those involved.
I have already referred to our response to the concerns set out in the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee report on air traffic control. Today's Financial Times has the headline: "CAA accepts MPs' criticism over Swanwick". Although it is by no means welcome, it is not unusual to have such delays, given the complexities of the systems.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the incidence of drunken and unruly passengers. One of the most disturbing aspects of people's rising expectations of air travel is that some do not seem to have rising expectations of how to behave. The number of incidents of drunk and disorderly behaviour that have been reported to the CAA as potentially threatening to air safety has risen from 13 in 1993 to 62 in 1997. It should be appreciated that that is a very small proportion of the total number of airline passengers travelling on UK aircraft, which in 1997 was 85 million. Nevertheless, the issue is taken very seriously.
It is an offence for a person to be drunk or to act recklessly or negligently on an aircraft. Offenders face a fine of up to £5,000 or two years in prison, or both. The commander of an aircraft can deny boarding rights to drunken or unruly passengers, or evict them if the need arises—I presume that that is when the aircraft is on the

ground. The CAA is working with the airlines to ensure that their staff receive appropriate training to deal with those people.
On the actions of the FAA, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred, I am not clear precisely how those could be enforced. The other offences to which he referred were the use of laptops and mobile phones, despite the fact that, on every flight nowadays, passengers are asked to switch them off. I shall certainly pass on his concerns to the CAA.
I have already mentioned the importance of independent investigations carried out by the AAIB, which is recognised internationally for its contribution to air safety. It tries to determine every contributory cause to an accident and any consequent injuries of deaths. It is free to make any recommendation that it wishes arising from its investigations. The majority of its recommendations are addressed to the CAA.
The AAIB is not required to assess the practicability or viability of its proposals, but the CAA must consider the feasibility and viability of such, assess how each would affect overall safety and the best method of implementation. Safety is its priority, and the authority accepts the majority of the recommendations, either in full or in part—more than 80 per cent. between 1990 and 1995.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: The hon. Lady is dealing in great detail with many of these issues, and hon. Members will be grateful for that, but does she think that the basic problem of air safety in this country is that we allow too many flights at too frequent intervals, especially in the south-east of England? Is she happy that the White Paper puts the emphasis on Heathrow and Gatwick, which are both in the south-east of England, as the hub of air transport to and from this country? Does she think that it would have been wiser, from all points of view, but especially in respect of safety for passengers and people on the ground, to have said no to more expansion of airports in the south-east?

Ms Jackson: I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Lady's contribution. Given the number of air traffic movements in this country, our record of air safety is second to none, although the Government, people in the aviation industry and the regulators cannot afford to be complacent about it. I was not aware that the White Paper made those assumptions about airports in the south-east. We have made it clear that there will be a daughter document on aviation and airports policy, and we are on the record as saying that we regard the development of regional airports as a vital way to regenerate the regions of the United Kingdom. Although we always take into account main considerations such as protection for the environment and surface access, airports are undoubtedly a regenerative accelerator.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned flight time limitations and automated cockpits. He is right to say that flight time limitations are important in respect of safety and ensuring that air crews are fit to fly aeroplanes and to take care of passengers. Such schemes are designed to ensure that crew are adequately rested between duty periods and do not work long hours that would cause fatigue.
The CAA is responsible for the rules governing such schemes in the United Kingdom. I am confident that the schemes work well. Foreign crews must meet FTL regulations set down by their own authorities, as required under the Chicago convention. In Europe, we have been trying for some time to harmonise schemes to a high standard, but it has proved difficult to reach an agreement that is acceptable to all in the industry. The European Commission is working hard on a solution, and we expect proposals soon.
On automated cockpits, computers and automated systems are being introduced progressively into new aircraft and—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve midnight.